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

[edwest211]

“natural theory” comes across as God did nothing. Adam and Eve were special creations. Science has nothing to say about faith. Faith is faith.

 

[rossum]

We are each of us a new creation as an expression of one humanity - a real kind of being capable of self knowledge and of meeting its Creator face to face.

We are not each a new species. What you say is theology, not related to the evolution of species. Also, I am Buddhist, so quoting Christian theology at me is about as useful as me quoting trikaya theory at you.

rossum

 

[Benadam]

The article does link to a talk by Dr Spitzer based on his book The Soul’s Upward Yearning which made a case for the existence of what he terms a transphysical soul.

Although merely skimming snippets of what he has to say, I think I’ve got a gist of what he’s trying to do, which is a reaching out to individuals who understand the world in accordance with its modern mythos that includes evolution.

Fr. Spitzer does connect to the modern mythos. Initially his language seems odd but the terms he uses stay true to the faith I think. Transphysical soul I kind of like. He believes Near death experiences prove it. He does believe in a dawn of the intellectual soul some 20,000 years ago. I think he’s very envelope pushing but I think he’s intelligent enough to know what too far is.

 

[sevenswords]

Ok just let me say this first, you can leave this discussion any time so if your time is being wasted it is not me doing it. also I run a business have a wife and three kids and until now have left the discussion of evolution for the most part as I have been fully convinced it is false in every level long ago.so excuse me if you think I should have a top rate education on the subject in every field.

So If your going to accuse me of ignoring claims like rocks then your wrong as I had said I was going to look into it. Can I remind you of your claim that I asked you to back up when you stated all life came from non living matter?
So this all means that at present I don’t have as much time as I did in the past and that is an assumption made from carbon daters as well that all things in the past were constant.

So let me tell you what I know very briefly.
back in the 1830,s it was believed by those who really wanted it to be true that the world was billions of years old and all the wise intelligent men and woman got together and said if this pig is to fly we better get some kind of evidence, of course just how they knew this is a mystery to me! maybe you could enlighten me? carbon dating the earliest method of dating was not used until 1949 soooooo.

Ok so we know now that this was a theory and in all this time we have had numerous numerous frauds from these so called intelligent scientists that have struggled to find any evidence so they make it up, some get caught some get away with it for a time anyway until creation science comes along and calls them out and of course they start a smear campaign to try to silence them. an example below of fraudsters

Loading…

www.theguardian.com

Dawkins like you know that life had to be designed so you know this because of the dna in each living thing, so where is the dna that changes species?

Look at the fossils look at the Coalacanth fossil for example and see how it was told to us by your science that this fossil was untold millions of years old and some claimed it to be one of those fish that left the sea and came to be a land mammal, now given this is what we have been told by evolutionary science then tell me how come when they found the same species alive and well in the ocean!!! why it had not CHANGED ONE LITTLE BIT?did evolution just miss this creature along with the many other species that have not changed a bit.

Since this is a Catholic forum let God speak
Romans 1 20 23
20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

 

[Bradskii]

I never ceased to be bemused by those who in the first instance deny that some information is wrong and then immediately proceed to exhibit a total lack of understanding of the subject. Except the lacknof knowledge here is not implied. You literally say that you don’t know. Nobody expects anyone on these threads to be experts. But you cannot deny or reject something if you patently (on your own admission) know nothing about it.

How about you read this to find out the methods people used to date the planet before ‘carbon dating’:

Loading…

www.scientificamerican.com

And I put carbon dating in quotes because it’s reasonably accurate to about 50,000 years. So pretty useless in determining the age of planets…

So you can add that web site to whatever else you are going to read whilst you ‘look into it’.

Let me know how you get on.

 

[o_mlly]

Indeed, we have many speculations, but no observations of any deity from any religion creating a new species from nothing.

So what? I made no scientific claim of a Creator. The issue being debated is the quality of the science that backs up the theory of evolution with a focus on data that supports two specific claims: 1) life evolved from non-life, and 2) rational life evolved from non-rational life. (See my prior post.)

Science always has the option of saying, as I believe, “We just don’t know, not enough data.” But our persistent “armchair scientists” on this site with their unquestioned “received wisdom” attempt to elevate these thinly disguised myths as if they were hard science. And as new information knocks down their old paradigms, the knee-jerk response is to smear the definition of the terms “specie” and “mutant” so as to become meaningless or when questioned act like immature adolescents crying. “Oh Dad, you just can’t understand.”

 

[Bradskii]

rossum:

Indeed, we have many speculations, but no observations of any deity from any religion creating a new species from nothing.

So what? I made no scientific claim of a Creator. The issue being debated is the quality of the science that backs up the theory of evolution with a focus on data that supports two specific claims: 1) life evolved from non-life, and 2) rational life evolved from non-rational life.

You are being constantly told that you don’t understand because you give every indication of that fact in almost every post. Case in point, conflating abiogenesis with with evolution. You may as well include ‘the quality of the science’ in star and planetary formation. They have just as much relevance.

And your question regarding ‘rational life’ is impossible to answer to your satisfaction without referrencing your idea of what man actually is. You aleady believe that God formed man as a rational being outside and independent of natural processes, so why ask for a scientific answer?

Unless I’m mistaken, your idea of rational man MUST include a soul. Which is not and cannot be involved in any scientific answer. You may as well ask for a scientific explanation of the resurrection.

If your questions are regarding science, then please don’t expect anything other than a scientific response. Don’t waste your time demanding scientific answers to metaphysical questions. I know and you know that you will reject them out of hand.

 

[rossum]

So what? I made no scientific claim of a Creator. The issue being debated is the quality of the science that backs up the theory of evolution with a focus on data that supports two specific claims: 1) life evolved from non-life, and 2) rational life evolved from non-rational life.

This thread’s title refers to “Evolution”, not abiogenesis. Darwin’s book was “The Origin of Species”. Evolution does not deal with the origin of life, so your first point is off topic for this thread.

How do you define “rational”. Chimps have been known to plan ahead. Chimps can beat humans in some memory tests. Some birds can make and use tools. None of these are as rational as a human being, but do they count as “a little bit rational”? What of various extinct hominids, who definitely made stone tools and IIRC some of the later species produced artworks. Were they rational enough for you?

rossum

 

[LeafByNiggle]

rossum:

You have still not shown us any scientific evidence for this barrier you claim exists. Absent any evidence, you will not get support from the science side. Remember we can see no barrier between the first very primitive cell and an onion, which contains more information than a human being.

Would not the preferred scientific approach to a claim that no genetic barrier to speciation exists be to evidence an actual speciation event?

That would indeed do it, and rossum has addressed that directly in his response to this. But I want to address a more fundamental problem with your logic.

You claim a certain thing is impossible (crossing this “barrier”). A few days ago I posted a hypothetical debate between historians. One of them claims that George Washington never ate a bell pepper - ever in his whole life! Other historians point out to this historian than bell peppers are native to Central America, were referenced in the Thomas Jefferson’s writings on gardening, that bell peppers were well-known to the Europeans by the year 1600, and were commonly served in colonial America. So it seems highly likely that George Washington did in fact eat a bell pepper at some point. However this particular historian stubbornly maintains that it never happened, and says "Would not the preferred approach to my claim be to evidence an instance of George Washington commenting on eating a bell pepper? " What do you think of this historian’s position and it’s similarity to yours? Do you see the illogic of it? It is called “confusing a necessary condition with a sufficient condition.”

The math against speciation from chimp to human seems extraordinarily impossible.

This is a misapplication of the mathematics of probability. It makes no sense to discuss the probability of an event that has happened. For example, suppose I arrange 1,000,000 numbered paper cups covering the floor of a gymnasium and give you a ping-pong ball which you toss at random. Suppose it lands in cup number 278,001. Suppose I said "the math against that happening seems extraordinarily impossible. That would be a nonsensical statement. But if I said that same statement before you threw the ping-pong ball and it landed in that particular cup, my statement would make perfect sense. You are then calling it unlikely after it has happened. Short of repeating the experiment, which is impossible for us, there is no way to even speculate on how likely such an event is. Do you see how you are applying the science of probability incorrectly here?

 

[Aloysium]

so quoting Christian theology at me is about as useful as me quoting trikaya theory at you.

In all humility, I believe I could actually interpret it for you, if you like. Pick something relevant to the OP, and I will try my best. There is one truth, fragments of which we all have revealed to us, amidst all the illusion.

 

[Aloysium]

What of various extinct hominids, who definitely made stone tools and IIRC some of the later species produced artworks. Were they rational enough for you?

If there is little point quoting Buddhist thought, there is much less quoting evolutionist beliefs to prove your point.

 

[o_mlly]

If your questions are regarding science, then please don’t expect anything other than a scientific response.

If your “scientific” answers are science-fiction then please expect to be called out. Of course, if you don’t offer any answers at all then please expect to be ignored.

An honest scientist does not make claims for which he has insufficient data. “How did living things come to be?” “I don’t know,” is a perfectly acceptable scientific answer. We then go to the other realms of human knowledge.

 

[o_mlly]

This thread’s title refers to “Evolution”, not abiogenesis. Darwin’s book was “The Origin of Species”. Evolution does not deal with the origin of life, so your first point is off topic for this thread.

Really? That’s your first rebuttal – not on topic? After >1600 posts … >100 from you like:

As to life evolving from “microbes” then I suggest that you look up the definition of Eukaryote, and the range of different species that covers. …

Living cells arose initially from chemistry, which is not chance, and then changed by a combination of random mutations and natural selection. …

It is perfectly possible that life arose more than once on earth. …

How do you define “rational”. Chimps have been known to plan ahead.

Abstraction.

 

[o_mlly]

You claim a certain thing is impossible (crossing this “barrier”).

You are confused. I did not made such a claim.

It makes no sense to discuss the probability of an event that has happened.

Yes, it does. But it makes no sense to claim an event can never happen absent evidence that is certain.

Did you reflect on the logical difference between allowing an event may or might have happened and claiming that same event can never happen?

 

[rossum]

If there is little point quoting Buddhist thought, there is much less quoting evolutionist beliefs to prove your point.

The title of this thread is: “Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true.” Quoting the science of the evolution of species is very relevant to the thread.

Theology, both Buddhist and Christian, is less relevant.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Abstraction.

How is planning ahead for the next day not an abstraction? The next day has to be an abstract concept until it actually arrives.

rossum

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

You claim a certain thing is impossible (crossing this “barrier”).

You are confused. I did not made such a claim.

You are right. It was buffalo’s claim, not yours, that macro-evolution never happens. That is the “barrier” that rossum referred to in his response. And since you jumped in to criticize rossum’s response I thought you were in agreement with buffalo that macro-evolution never happens. My mistake.

It makes no sense to discuss the probability of an event that has happened.

Yes, it does.

If you think so, then how do you respond to the example I gave of doing exact that - considering the probability of an event after it has happened. Was it really that unbelievable that the ping-pong ball landed in cup number 278,001?

 

[Bradskii]

rossum:

How do you define “rational”. Chimps have been known to plan ahead.

Abstraction.

So rationality wasn’t good enough. Because, obviously, other animals exhibit rational behaviour. So you need to move the goalp…sorry, ‘be more specific’. And asked for a definition of rationality you come up with ‘abstaction’. Which is obviously not a definition of abstraction - so I think we will go with the goal post analogy after all.

And after it has been pointed out that animals also use abstract thought (planning ahead including tool making for example), then where are the goalposts going to end up?

What you need is a concept that can’t be scientifically explained.But maybe calling it a ‘soul’ is giving the game away. So I can see people needing to chip away at what you actually mean until you admit that what you mean is something metaphysical. And as I said, there are no scientific answers to metaphysical claims.

Why not save everyone the time and trouble now and admit that there is no scientific answer to what you believe Man posesses and what you need will only be found in the tbeology secion. Not in a discussion about evolution.

Overlapping magisteria and all that.

 

[Bradskii]

If you think so, then how do you respond to the example I gave of doing exact that - considering the probability of an event after it has happened. Was it really that unbelievable that the ping-pong ball landed in cup number 278,001?

We have to be aware that people believe, in effect, that cup number 278,001 is special. And that no other result could have been possible. So the chances of it happening at random is not feasable.

Your existence, for example, is entirely random. But most people, perhaps even you, do not consider that an option.

 

[o_mlly]

How is planning ahead for the next day not an abstraction? The next day has to be an abstract concept until it actually arrives.

I think you mean simply “planning ahead”. Or do you think the interval makes a difference? If so, how far in advance determines rational planning vs. intelligent planning?
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Lion 1: “Hey, how’s the family.”
Lion 2: “All good. Let’s plan dinner.”
Lion 1: “I feel like ‘wildebeest’.”
Lion 2: “Had that last night. How about a nice impala instead?”

And asked for a definition of rationality you come up with ‘abstaction’. Which is obviously not a definition of abstraction - so I think we will go with the goal post analogy after all.

And after it has been pointed out that animals also use abstract thought (planning ahead including tool making for example), then where are the goalposts going to end up?

The goal posts haven’t budged an inch. From way back to post #376 of a similar thread:

Now, be fair. Artwork is evidence of imagination and abstraction. Faculties that are human as I have consistently posted. Next question.

The problem is not goal post movement but your inability to get the ball downfield.

… admit that there is no scientific answer to what you believe …

Please read the posts and don’t ask me to do what I (and you: “Nothing supports atheism.”) have already done. As long as other posters claim science supports atheism then I expect you will ask, as I do, for evidence (if you’re consistent).