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


#6207

We are lead to believe that the fossil record reveasl one genus being superceded by an different by related genus, but the question is, is it a natural ongoing process, or were these transtiions a series of “one-of” events that constitute God process of creation? In other words, the fossil record can inform us somewhat as to to WHAT happened, but it can’t inform us HOW is happened.

The theory of evolution is no more than the best scientific explanation of the history of life on earth, which may or may not be the truth - I think the evidence suggests the latter.

I agree - but the fossil record in many ways also contradicts the theory of evolution. For example, S. J. Gould described the fossil record as an “embarrassment” to Darwin’s theory of gradualism. I believe a progressive-creation model best fits the fossil record.


#6208

Origen must have done a lot of things right, because he is a greatly respected figure in the history of the Church.


#6209

Not a new species, perhaps, but there are eye-witness accounts of dead people being raised from the dead, which means there is empirical evidence of God instantly creating an living organism from inanimate matter. That being so, I dare say God would have no trouble creating a new species.

Furthermore, all those gaps, missing-links and sudden appearances in the fossil record and the Cambrian explosion don’t support a contiguous process of biological evolution. The fossil evidence supports a progressive-creation model much better than the evolution model.
Evolutions use the excuse that the fossil record is incomplete - in other words, their argument rests on evidence that is hoped for but may not actually exist … which is a rather poor basis for a scientific theory.


#6210

You are insulting a fellow Catholic here. Francis Collins is both Catholic and an evolutionary biologist. He has been appointed to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and has written many books, including “The Language of God”.

rossum


#6211

Rationally; I put my trust in God; I have had many profound experiences that are beyond my understanding.

In 2011 I had tests done for cancer, about a month later the doctor phoned and said he urgently wanted to see me, it was non – Hodgkin Lymphoma. This was a name I recognised, our friend had this cancer, and died a few months later. I prayed for the wisdom, strength and peace to do God’s will, whether the cancer was a death sentence, or just an inconvenience.

I can only say that from the moment of making this prayer, I have experienced a profound sense of peace, and the thought of cancer has never troubled me for a moment. Recognising this sense of peace comes from God, gives me reason to be thankful.

I have been a Street Pastor for the last eleven years; I shall be going out tonight and finish around 4 am tomorrow. We have stood in the middle of countless angry drunks fighting, encountered fights with broken bottles, asked for people to hand over their knives. There are some amazing ladies in our teams, the oldest is 79; we go out in our weakness and put our trust in God. You will be pleased to hear we do not go out to preach.

Rationally; I do not see how evolution could help me; in the way that the power of prayer and faith helps me.


#6212

I was intrigued as to what questions were expressed.

However, since post 6142 is:

I think this is the post you were referring to:

The paper was to support the claim that:

And the relevant quote from the abstract would be:

The current system is thus inadequate to classify and name the immense genetic diversity within species . . . we propose a classification and naming system that is exclusively based on genome similarity and that is suitable for automatic assignment of codes to any genome-sequenced organism without requiring any phenotypic or phylogenetic analysis.

Pointing out a move to phylogenetics, you are restating what he said.

As to your question, horizonatal gene transfer is possible because living organisms are constructed in a similar fashion. This can be understood as a built in feature designed into the first kinds of living things. I would say that the relationship that exists between ourselves and a bacterium is not one of a common ancestry in some primordial unicellular creature, but rather that the information which went into our construction has components that are present in all life.

Playing around with Google on the subject, I came up with Genome-wide analysis in chicken reveals that local levels of genetic diversity are mainly governed by the rate of recombination :

Background Polymorphism is key to the evolutionary potential of populations. . . This finding, together with overall lower diversity levels in domesticates compared to red jungle fowl, seem attributable to artificial selection during domestication.

In terms of a creationaist model, we can understand that there exists discontinuous genetic variation among fowl, which would have descended from the original ancestor(s) of their kind, with current memebers having different genetic maps as a result of recombination. Domestication has narrowed down that diversity through breeding practices, but recombination continues and can introduce changes in the chicken population. There is no evolution in the sense of an ancestral tree, or bush of life, but rather devolution, through random chemical factors, in addition to the “preprogrammed” capacity for diversity that is to be found and was established in the creation of different kinds of organisms.


#6213

Attacking morphology as a classification system in favor of a genetic classification system actually supports evolution rather than detracting from it.


#6214

I’m not sure I understand. However, in both cases as I see it, morphology is being used to classify living things be it of the phenotype or genotype. Living organisms are more than just matter, which is necessary to manifest what they are as objects in time and space, but misses the totality of being being, their soul, that makes them what they are in themselves. To my mind, everything can be said to support evolution as long as one wishes to arrange the data into that form. The sun still rises in the east in spite of its changing position in the sky being better understood as due to the revolution of the earth; similarly people seem to be unwilling to move beyond the modern mythos and discover that this is and has been all about creation


#6215

Does this apply only to living organisms, or does it apply to nonliving objects as well? Does the sun have a soul that makes it what it is in itself?

Are you talking about a sort of Platonism? Or does the soul interact with the matter, and if so, exactly how?

And I don’t see how any of this is related to evolution which acts on an intergenerational level. Are you saying the soul controls how organisms reproduce? If so, how?


#6216

Even thought I do believe that’s a “stretch”, nevertheless I do believe God was behind it all.


#6217

But what Gould said clearly does not negate the basic ToE-- quite the opposite.

In my introductory anthropology course, I used the terminology “mosaic evolution”, which is more reflective of Gould’s analysis that Darwin’s. It goes like this: “a species typically consists many different smaller groups living in many different environments, each evolving in their own way, only some of which may evolve into new species”.

And what we find in the fossil record, which Darwin had no clue even existed, reflects this sloppiness.


#6218

For my last post on this, at least until Monday, let me just say that the modern Vatican relies on scientific experts to help keep in touch with what’s going on in that area worldwide, and they have long concluded that the basic ToE does not negate Divine creation, plus they believe that they have enough supporting evidence as to make it an acceptable interpretation as to how God constructed our life forms. Even our universe has evolved over billions of years as we now well know, and the Vatican has accepted that as well as not being a threat to our faith.

My point is that the ToE offers no threat whatsoever to the belief that God created all.

Have a most blessed Sunday, and take care.


#6219

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

Because well established mainstream science has proven that evolution of species happens.
And the CC has a long history of valuing reason working with faith.


#6220

I do too. The potential truth of the ToE does nothing to threaten that.

Me too. The ToE does nothing to threaten them.

Who says the ToE must “help” you?

I’d argue that black hole research doesn’t particularly “help” me, but I’m still all for it.

There’s absolutely no need to make an enemy of this. It poses no threat to God. Evolution doesn’t diminish God any more than us learning that the earth goes around the sun rather than the opposite.


#6221

Sure. What you and others need to understand is that God and evolution are not mutually exclusive.

My repair manual for my Ford truck is also true. Its truth does not detract from the truth of God.


#6222

As to Plato or Aristotle, I don’t want to place a label on these words, but obviously you are free to do so.

I would begin by putting aside the idea of objects and think information, which would be our mental understanding about forms that exist.

Let’s suppose that the initial “form” was “light”, a fundamental energy, prime matter, whatever the name, it is at the foundation of created being. That primordial boundless, undifferentiated form of existence, split up into finite being came with the creation of cyclical progressive time, from an eternal Fountain of Being, Triune in nature - Love. What followed were the basic, subatomic, building blocks of matter. Out of that plasma, the atom was brought into being as a whole system in itself. All along, what has been created are individual forms of being which exist in relation to what is other to themselves; they can become “entangled”, become part of an encompassing system, whole in itself - that is how a cup of hot water in a room cools down and we are individual members of one humanity broken in sin and one in love.

Atoms do not reproduce themselves, although they can grow from Hydrogen up the periodic table, constituted as they are of the various quarks and stuff. The relationships they have with one another, at that level of creation, is what we study in chemistry.

The next step in the hierarchy of existent things would be unicellular creatures, which are whole beings in themselves. The “soul”, that which makes this form what it is, has the capablity of reproduction. Informed by atoms coming together as molecules, these creatures incorporate matter that is other to themselves and split into two cells.

There are plants that possess the same qualities, and according to some demonstrate the beginnings of a psychological dimension. It would not be very sophisticated, but they are existent things that react to their environment.

Animals clearly demonstrate “mind” in the organization of their nervous systems, which gives them instinctive perceptions, cognitive awareness, as well as emotional and behavioural reactions. Their “soul” is the organizational principle for the cells which have diversifed into tissues of various organ systems including the brain, whose functional structure, in human beings, is said to rival in complexity of all the stars in all the galaxies of the universe.

Within the unified totality of our being right here and now as we perceive, think, feel and act as one person existing in relation to what is other to ourselves, we can identify a physical component of cells, made up of molecules, made up of quarks etc., all of this goes into the making of what we are and here experience.

This did not “evolve” as a result of random chemical activity, but has been determined by over-riding organizational principles which define each level in the hierarchy of creation from the simplest atom to we ourselves who are its crown, in Christ able to come face to face with God.


#6223

Is there a place where I can read more? I can kind of get what you’re saying but I think it needs fleshed out more than can be done in this forum.


#6224

It actually shows devolution.


#6225

no one argues micro-evolution, aka adaptation.


#6226

Evolution is defined as a change in the DNA of a species over time.

Your “devolution” is a change in the DNA of a species over time.

Your “micro-evolution” and “adaptation” are both changes in the DNA of a species over time

So near and yet so far, buffalo.

rossum


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.