Evolution! Did we come from monkeys?


#1

i ask for a brief answer; can you build a building without ground floor?you cannot. how can you build a theory without explaining the origin of first living organism? Add the lack of transitional forms, invalid evolution mechanisms to this.evolutiondeceit.com


#2

Circumstantial evidence proves nothing, although it can possibly be sufficiently convincing beyond some particular level of doubt in any given mind.

I neither endorse or refute macroevolution, except within the strict realm of intellectual argument. In the realm of science, it is one explanation that may have some merit for that realm. In the realm of faith in God, I don’t see why it’s relevant. My children were taught in their conservative Catholic high school religion classes that Genesis is intended to be interpreted figuratively. I was relieved to hear that because there are so many practical difficulties one has to deal with if one is to attempt a literal interpretation.

The question, “did we come from monkeys” along with some of its traditional associates such assertions this lowers our dignity as human beings, can be an effective way to bring about emotional responses to the evolution debate. It doesn’t bother me a bit that I might be a monkey’s nephew. Life is so complex and wonderful that I wouldn’t put it past God to make me out of dirt, if that’s what He wants to do. Why would I have less dignity or value if He used living building blocks instead of starting from completely inert materials?

I’ve gone through some stages between the time I was a gleam in my father’s eye and now that aren’t very “dignified.” When babies are first born they look like bloody, slimy, oxygen-deprived monsters; that doesn’t reduce their dignity or their ability to “clean up” into actual human beings.

I have another question. How about the myriad microorganisms which live symbiotically within us? Our bodies cannot function without them. Are they a part of us, or part of our environment? Isn’t it rather disgusting to think that all these ugly little things are going on inside of us? If it isn’t, then why is a monkey for an ancestor a problem?

Alan


#3

[quote=lahokamal]how can you build a theory without explaining the origin of first living organism?
[/quote]

This is an excellent point.

For that matter, it goes for all material existence, too. The Vatican may have come up with the Big Bang theory which works as a model for many scientists, but that theory requires just as much faith as any Biblical story, for you just can’t get from something to nothing.

Sure, Einstein and others show us how matter and energy can be interchanged, but energy had to have a source, too, or so-called “scientific” theories of origin are no less fantastic than Mother Goose.

One of my favorite quotes attributed to Einstein is, “religion without science is blind. Science without religion is lame.”

Alan


#4

[quote=AlanFromWichita]…The Vatican may have come up with the Big Bang theory which works as a model for many scientists, but that theory requires just as much faith as any Biblical story…
[/quote]

The Vatican did not “come up” with the Big Bang Theory. Theories which have been popularly named “Big Bang Theories” have been independently proposed by Aleksander Friedmann and Georges Lemaître. This work was not based on faith but on scientific observation, to try to explain the phenomenon of galaxy recession as observed by Edwin Hubble in terms of Einsteinian Relativity. Many other more recent astrophysicists cosmologists have contributed to this understanding of the mechanics of the universe, and their work seems to be the more compelling of the proposed explanations of the universe at this time, its chief rivals being various steady-state universe theories.


#5

Cosmological evolution–that is, evolution of the universe from the big bang to the formation of atoms, to the formation of galaxies and planets, seems to be pretty well established.

Earth’s geological history, and the history of life forms through the millenia of earth’s existence, also seems to be pretty well established, whether or not one accepts biological evolutionary theory as a way of linking the history of those various life forms.

I don’t worry about evolutionary theory being a detriment to our faith. I don’t think that God intended to write scientific cosmology or scientific biology theory in the bible. That was not the intent.


#6

Better to be descended from a long line of simians, than from some humans one might think of :slight_smile:


#7

Did we evolve? Absolutely not.

For fun, here’s my favorite poem on the subject, by the great Mr. C.S. Lewis:

Lead us, Evolution, lead us
Up the future’s endless stair:
Chop us, change us, prod us, weed us.
For stagnation is despair:
Groping, guessing, yet progressing,
Lead us nobody knows where.

Wrong or justice in the present,
Joy or sorrow, what are they
While there’s always jam to-morrow,
While we tread the onward way?
Never knowing where we’re going,
We can never go astray.

To whatever variation
Our posterity may turn
Hairy, squashy, or crustacean,
Bulbous-eyed or square of stern,
Tusked or toothless, mild or ruthless,
Towards that unkown god we yearn.

Ask not if it’s god or devil,
Brethren, lest your words imply
Static norms of good and evil
(As in Plato) throned on high;
Such scholastic, inelastic,
Abstract yardsticks we deny.

Far too long have sages vainly
Glossed great Nature’s simple text;
He who runs can read it plainly,
'Goodess = what comes next.'
By evolving, Life is solving
All the questions we perplexed.

On then! Value means survival-
Value. If our progeny
Spreads and spawns and licks each rival,
That will prove its deity
(Far from pleasant, by our present
Standards, though it well may be).


#8

[quote=lahokamal]i ask for a brief answer; can you build a building without ground floor?you cannot. how can you build a theory without explaining the origin of first living organism? Add the lack of transitional forms, invalid evolution mechanisms
[/quote]

The brief answer is that these issues have been explained, in great detail, and the “criticisms” rebutted many times. There’s a real solid ground floor.

Try the talk origins FAQ for brief concise answers to your questions and a startignpoint for further searching
talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

The truth will set you free

[quote=lahokamal]to this.evolutiondeceit.com
[/quote]

Where did you dig up that site? :eek:

It is impossible for us to reach the physical world. All objects around us are a collection of perceptions such as seeing, hearing, and touching. By processing the data in the centre of vision and in other sensory centres, our brain, throughout our lives, confronts not the “original” of the matter existing outside us but rather the copy formed inside our brain. It is at this point that we are misled by assuming that these copies are instances of real matter outside us.

:rolleyes:

Since Chrisitanity puts a lot of weight on the material reality of Christ’s existence this eastern brand of philosophical Idealism is quite problematic

BTW we didn’t “come form monkeys”, monkeys and humans share common ancestry as proven by comparative anatomy, biochemistry, genetic studies, the fossil record, and our own eyes.


#9

[quote=Steve Andersen]BTW we didn’t “come form monkeys”, monkeys and humans share common ancestry as proven by comparative anatomy, biochemistry, genetic studies, the fossil record, and our own eyes.
[/quote]

That sounds to me like a perfect argument for a common designer, not a common ancestor.


#10

Here’s an argument for starters:

The theory of Evolution rests on the idea that over looong stretches of time we mutated from simple organisms to complex organisms. This “beneficial mutation” has no foothold in science. Here are some facts about mutation:

  1. Humans are now subject to over 3500 mutational disorders.
  2. They are 1000 times more harmful than helpful.
  3. They don’t create; they corrupt.
  4. They indicate creation (changed in genes that already exist).
  5. No one has ever observed mutations causing anything that could remotely resemble proof that any kind of plant or animal can or did change to another kind.

#11

If creation and evolution were both right, those who believed in evolution came from monkeys and those who didn’t were created by God;)


#12

[quote=surfinpure]Here’s an argument for starters:

The theory of Evolution rests on the idea that over looong stretches of time we mutated from simple organisms to complex organisms. This “beneficial mutation” has no foothold in science. Here are some facts about mutation:

  1. Humans are now subject to over 3500 mutational disorders.
  2. They are 1000 times more harmful than helpful.
  3. They don’t create; they corrupt.
  4. They indicate creation (changed in genes that already exist).
  5. No one has ever observed mutations causing anything that could remotely resemble proof that any kind of plant or animal can or did change to another kind.
    [/quote]

Current mutations as described above do pose a problem in one sense, but the mutations are largely due to exposure to EMF and toxins not previously endured. Have we reached our mutation capacity???:hmmm: Thanks and God Bless.


#13

I hate to try to interject something else but I have been told numerous times how much I look like a monkey. I have also been told at work that I can beat any monkey crawling up on the overhead. I just wish I had one of them tails. :smiley:
Oh well maybe in another million years!


#14

Thus saith the International Theological Commission of (then) Cardinal Ratzinger:

“According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the ‘Big Bang’ and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5 - 4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.” (From the International Theological Commission, headed by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, in plenary sessions held in Rome 2000-2002, published July 2004, paragraph 63)

I’d stack up TalkOrigins against “EvolutionDeceit.com” anyday, or EvolutionDeception.com, EvolutionIsALie.com, EvolutionLies.com, EvolutionLiars.com, EvolutionSucks.com, etc.

PLEASE read some books by Christian evolutionists, how about Finding Darwin’s God by Ken Miller, Perspectives on an Evolving Creation by Keith Miller (no relation), Coming to Peace with Science by Falk, the self-published books by Glenn Morton, the Johnson-Lamoureux debate, or the brand new one sold through Ignatius Press called Origin of the Human Species by Bonnette. For an anti-evolution book try Dembski’s Uncommon Dissent. Much more reasonable approaches than implying all of modern biology, genetics, geology, or paleontology is involved in some deliberate hoax, conspiracy, or deceit. :cool:

Recommending books such as “Evolution Deceit” is like recommending Jack Chick, Dave Hunt, or James White books on Catholicism. Read about evolution from the Equus mouth, not from comic books. :smiley: :smiley:

Phil P


#15

[quote=surfinpure]That sounds to me like a perfect argument for a common designer, not a common ancestor.
[/quote]

The two are not mutually exclusive if you concede that the designer used evolution to build his designs. :wink:

I am disheartened by the non-sense going on in Kansas right now :mad:

but fortunately the scientific world seems to be getting a little smarter in public relations. I noticed that the latest big dinosaur find is being referred to as a “transitional species” just to try to nip that ridiculous criticism in the bud (even though all species are transitional species)


#16

It is highly likely that the human species evolved from some lower form of primate. The primordial ancestral species is likely long extinct. We didn’t evolve directly from Chimpanzees, or Orangutans or Gorillas.

Our faith also proclaims that we are progressing toward full communion with God, and that we are destined to share in the Divine life of the creator.

We are not mere animals, if that is what you are driving at. Human beings are the only creatures on this earth created in the “image” and “after the likeness” of God despite whatever genetic and ancestral relationships we share with lower forms of biological life.


#17

[quote=surfinpure]Here’s an argument for starters:

The theory of Evolution rests on the idea that over looong stretches of time we mutated from simple organisms to complex organisms. This “beneficial mutation” has no foothold in science. Here are some facts about mutation:

  1. Humans are now subject to over 3500 mutational disorders.
  2. They are 1000 times more harmful than helpful.
  3. They don’t create; they corrupt.
  4. They indicate creation (changed in genes that already exist).
  5. No one has ever observed mutations causing anything that could remotely resemble proof that any kind of plant or animal can or did change to another kind.
    [/quote]

No, you’re misrepresenting the mechanism.

“mutations” aren’t necessarily the things of grade B Sci-Fi movies

The more correct term is “variation”
With the exception of identical twins we are all different on a genetic level.

So while we may be subject to a mere 3,500 mutational disorders we are subject to well over 6,000,000,000 successful genetic variations
That’s over 1,700,000 to 1 and evolution is all about the odds

It is this variation that is the start of evolution; genetic drift of isolated populations has been clearly demonstrated

The most noticeable is the variation in skin color

A crueler example is sickle cell anemia. It is caused by a mutation that developed naturally in an area of West Africa where malaria is endemic. Being a carrier of the mutation confers resistance to malaria and is thus a survival advantage. The tragic downside is that if 2 carriers have children there is a 25% chance that each child will develop sickle cell anemia. There is also a 50% chance that each child will inherit the beneficial mutation therefore the mutation persists in areas with malaria because it is a net benefit.

On the other hand, the incidence of the mutation is decreasing in people of West African decent living in the US or other places where malaria is not a problem since it confers no benefit.


#18

[quote=Steve Andersen]No, you’re misrepresenting the mechanism.

“mutations” aren’t necessarily the things of grade B Sci-Fi movies

The more correct term is “variation”
With the exception of identical twins we are all different on a genetic level.

So while we may be subject to a mere 3,500 mutational disorders we are subject to well over 6,000,000,000 successful genetic variations
That’s over 1,700,000 to 1 and evolution is all about the odds

It is this variation that is the start of evolution; genetic drift of isolated populations has been clearly demonstrated

The most noticeable is the variation in skin color

A crueler example is sickle cell anemia. It is caused by a mutation that developed naturally in an area of West Africa where malaria is endemic. Being a carrier of the mutation confers resistance to malaria and is thus a survival advantage. The tragic downside is that if 2 carriers have children there is a 25% chance that each child will develop sickle cell anemia. There is also a 50% chance that each child will inherit the beneficial mutation therefore the mutation persists in areas with malaria because it is a net benefit.

On the other hand, the incidence of the mutation is decreasing in people of West African decent living in the US or other places where malaria is not a problem since it confers no benefit.
[/quote]

This is what we call the “bait and switch.” Variation, a change within the species, is not to be confused with macro-evolution, change from one species to another.

What you call “variation” is what is known as MICRO-evolution, the only definition of evolution that is demonstrated in the natural world.

Variation is evidence of a Creator, since He designed us to learn to resist certain diseases and operate under changing conditions. It always takes place, just as in your examples, within the species. It never changes one species (fish) to another species (bird).


#19

[quote=4 marks]It is highly likely that the human species evolved from some lower form of primate. The primordial ancestral species is likely long extinct. We didn’t evolve directly from Chimpanzees, or Orangutans or Gorillas./QUOTE]

  1. What did the lower form of primate evolve from, and how?
  2. Why is there no fossil evidence for this ancestral species? If it took millions (or billions) of years to gradually evolve, shouldn’t there be examples galore of all of these “in-between” stages?
  3. Why is there no evolution (change from species to species) going on at present?
  4. Why are there no new species?
    [/quote]

#20

[quote=PhilVaz]Thus saith the International Theological Commission of (then) Cardinal Ratzinger:

"According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the ‘Big Bang’ and has been expanding and cooling ever since.
[/quote]

Evidence from Space:

  1. The shrinking sun limits the earth-sun relationship to less than “billions of years.” The sun is losing both mass and diameter. Changing the mass would upset the fine gravitational balance that keeps the earth at just the right distance for life to survive.

2)The 1/2 inch layer of cosmic dust on the moon indicates the moon has not been accumulating dust for billions of years.

  1. The existence of short-period comets indicates the uinverse is less than billions of years old.

  2. Fossil meteorites are very rare in layers other than the top layers of the earth. This indicates that the layers were not exposed for millions of years as is currently being taught in school textbooks.

  3. The moon is receding a few inches each year. Billions of years ago the moon would have been so close that the tides would have been much higher, eroding the continents quickly.

  4. The moon contains considerable quantities of U-236 and Th-230, both short-lived isotopes that would have been long gone if the moon were billions of years old.

  5. The existence of great quantities of space dust, which by the Poynting-Robertson effect would have been vacuumed out of our solar system in a few thousand years, indicates the solar system is young.

  6. At the rate many star clusters are expanding, they could not have been traveling for billions of years.

  7. Saturn’s rings are still unstable, indicating they are not billions of years old.

  8. Jupiter and Saturn are cooling off rather rapidly. They are losing heat twice as fast as they gain it from the sun. They cannot be billions of years old.

  9. Jupiter’s moon, Io, is losing matter to Jupiter. It cannot be billions of years old.

Shall I go on?


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.