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


#2944

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?

Answer: there ain’t any as it’s strictly a fabrication put forth by some who insist that the creation accounts must be taken literally, which is really quite absurd as these accounts simply do not at all match what the scientific evidence dealing with both the creation of our universe and life here on Earth indicates. If literalism was only that which is available, one could maybe take that position, but it simply ain’t the only available interpretation of these accounts.

The Church simply does not endorse the concept that all of scripture must be taken at the literalistic level. Aquinas, for example, believed that if one took that position, then Jesus could not possibly be the Messiah.


#2945

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?


#2946

Consistent with philosophy, genetics and the second law what we actually observe is devolution.


#2947

Is it possible for you to link these sources to me as I have not seen them? I have asked my question quite a few times before both here and at another website and never saw an answer.


#2948

BTW, some keep falsely claiming there are no “transitional species”, which those of us in the biological sciences know is not true, but here is another example out of many from National Geographic: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2018/09/news-new-species-fossil-bird-dinosaurs-flight-evolution-paleontology/


#2949

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/


#2950

Because you have not done what you just said you have done.


#2951

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.


#2952

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.


#2953

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.


#2954

If a biblical text is written in an historical style, I suggest it is not merely conveying a “theological truth”, but real history.


#2955

The Martryology of the Catholic Church is not found in the Bible. You can Google it.


#2956

I’m familiar with #283 - how do I contradict it?


#2957

How is my literal interpretation of Genesis 2:7 non-canonical?


#2958

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.


#2959

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.

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.

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.

The burden is on you to show that it is canonical, since that is your claim.


#2960

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.


#2961

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.


#2962

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?


#2963

The perfection you speak of is a philosophical and spiritual perfection. It has no bearing on evolution.


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.