FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
Evolution - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Archives (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Theology and Philosophy (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Thread: Evolution (/showthread.php?tid=39628)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24


Re: Evolution - Crusading Philologist - 04-04-2011

(04-04-2011, 06:24 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(04-04-2011, 06:19 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(04-04-2011, 06:11 PM)someguy Wrote:
(01-01-2011, 07:55 PM)Christus Imperat Wrote: What do you mean by genetically pure?  I don't know much about genetics.

I'm actually waiting for an answer to this question

on the other hand, what about the argument of the average height of human beings growing throughout the years, is that not evolution?
Well, isn't the increase in height largely a result of better nutrition and the like? I would assume that something has to be the result of natural selection for it to be considered evolution. I am not an expert though.

It is considered "micro-evolution", or evolution within a species. That intra-specific evolution occurs is proved. The most controversial aspect of evolution usually concerns "macro-evolution", or evolution between species. That inter-specific evolution occurs is but a theory and has not been proved.
It seems like a bit of a false dichotomy to me. Wouldn't "macro-evolution" occur when there has been sufficient "micro-evolution" to consider two populations to now be separate species? Unless I am missing something, I am not sure how you can deny the possibility of "macro-evolution," given a sufficient length of time, after accepting "micro-evolution."


Re: Evolution - Historian - 04-04-2011

(04-04-2011, 06:11 PM)someguy Wrote:
(01-01-2011, 07:55 PM)Christus Imperat Wrote: What do you mean by genetically pure?  I don't know much about genetics.

I'm actually waiting for an answer to this question

on the other hand, what about the argument of the average height of human beings growing throughout the years, is that not evolution?

It is better nutrition.

Look at the heights of North Koreans for versus South Koreans. South Koreans are over 4" taller on average.

Also look at the height of Americans and the Dutch. The Americans used to be taller, but the Dutch are now taller.

These are averages.

Human height has not changed. The average heights of populations changed, yes, but not by much. Napolean was 5'7" for example.The average Roman legionnaire was 5'6".

It is like thinking that people getting fatter is evolution.




Re: Evolution - Historian - 04-04-2011

(04-04-2011, 06:30 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: It seems like a bit of a false dichotomy to me. Wouldn't "macro-evolution" occur when there has been sufficient "micro-evolution" to consider two populations to now be separate species? Unless I am missing something, I am not sure how you can deny the possibility of "macro-evolution," given a sufficient length of time, after accepting "micro-evolution."

It is a vague term, evolution.

Accepting the changing expressions of existing genetic code is not to say that one thinks new things will suddenly arise.




Re: Evolution - INPEFESS - 04-04-2011

(04-04-2011, 06:30 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(04-04-2011, 06:24 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(04-04-2011, 06:19 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(04-04-2011, 06:11 PM)someguy Wrote:
(01-01-2011, 07:55 PM)Christus Imperat Wrote: What do you mean by genetically pure?  I don't know much about genetics.

I'm actually waiting for an answer to this question

on the other hand, what about the argument of the average height of human beings growing throughout the years, is that not evolution?
Well, isn't the increase in height largely a result of better nutrition and the like? I would assume that something has to be the result of natural selection for it to be considered evolution. I am not an expert though.

It is considered "micro-evolution", or evolution within a species. That intra-specific evolution occurs is proved. The most controversial aspect of evolution usually concerns "macro-evolution", or evolution between species. That inter-specific evolution occurs is but a theory and has not been proved.
It seems like a bit of a false dichotomy to me. Wouldn't "macro-evolution" occur when there has been sufficient "micro-evolution" to consider two populations to now be separate species? Unless I am missing something,

You are: proof. If it should be obvious, why is there no proof of species in their intermediate, progressive, transitional stages? The reason is that the parts are only valuable as constituents of the whole.



Re: Evolution - Crusading Philologist - 04-04-2011

(04-04-2011, 06:38 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: You are: proof. If it should be obvious, why is there no proof of species in their intermediate, progressive, transitional stages? The reason is that the parts are only valuable as constituents of the whole.

Well, Wikipedia has this fairly lengthy list of alleged transitional fossils: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils




Re: Evolution - INPEFESS - 04-04-2011

(04-04-2011, 07:02 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(04-04-2011, 06:38 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: You are: proof. If it should be obvious, why is there no proof of species in their intermediate, progressive, transitional stages? The reason is that the parts are only valuable as constituents of the whole.

Well, Wikipedia has this fairly lengthy list of alleged transitional fossils: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

I'm sure it does. And so do most anthropology textbooks. Similarly, I can find all sorts of historical "facts" in modern history books that amount to little more than speculation. Usually, this is the result of not telling the whole story or failing to provide all of the evidence. But these falsehoods are no more "true" than is much of the alleged evidence that is often used to "prove" evolution.

But the key word here is "alleged". An extensive study of each one will reveal why evolution is still considered by scientists to be a theory and not a scientific fact.


Re: Evolution - Crusading Philologist - 04-04-2011

(04-04-2011, 07:13 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(04-04-2011, 07:02 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(04-04-2011, 06:38 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: You are: proof. If it should be obvious, why is there no proof of species in their intermediate, progressive, transitional stages? The reason is that the parts are only valuable as constituents of the whole.

Well, Wikipedia has this fairly lengthy list of alleged transitional fossils: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

I'm sure it does. And so do most anthropology textbooks.

But the key word here is "alleged". An extensive study of each one will reveal why evolution is still considered by scientists to be a theory and not a scientific fact.

Well, evolution is a theory that attempts to explain various facts, so I am not sure that any particular fossil could "prove" evolution. Instead, you have to decide whether or not evolution fits with and explains the evidence we have.


Re: Evolution - Historian - 04-04-2011

Here is a list of life forms considered living fossils, ie, not having changed with evidence, for a very long time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_fossils

Instead of theorising that fossils we find, that are not represented by any animal we know, are just ancestors, it makes sense to consider them extinct species, because we know, with hard evidence, that animals which do exist now, existed then, in the same manner. Sometimes (and more often), they are finding animals which were thought to be extinct, alive in the same way the fossils represented them.

This would be concrete evidence that, barring actual evidence to the contrary, species remain the same over time and many species have gone, and will go, extinct.




Re: Evolution - twinc - 04-05-2011

here we have to ask  - was Adam a giant or a dwarf and was he black or white - btw evolution is ever upwards,so what do we see but entropy viz rust and dust and wolves became dogs and not vice versa - twinc


Re: Evolution - twinc - 04-05-2011

(10-21-2010, 09:26 PM)A Catholic Thinker Wrote:
(10-21-2010, 10:21 AM)mirarivos Wrote: What is the Best quote from the Church "against" Evolution of the Human Body?

In Christ,

Andrew

There are none.  As a matter of fact, that opinion is expressly allowed, by Pius XII in his encyclical, as long as monogenism is respected.

of course there are and always has been but blatantly flouted and ignored and Evolution which has been and is forbidden and anathema to and for Catholics openly and brazenly accepted and taught as even opposed to Humani Generis where permission to investigate and research did not imply permission to accept - see www.cfnews.org/sung-pio.htm and type Faith of our Fathers - Council of Cologne into search box and click - simul et ex nihilo viz instant and complete creation out of nothing has been and is Church teaching as at even Catechism at CCC327 - twinc