Evolution Must Go
#21
CP, the difference between the two is substantial changes.  Macro evolution allows for species change, not just variation.  We're talking about dogs become cats, and lions become bears sort of thing.  Micro evolution deals in accidental changes, "accidental" in the sense that Doce Me uses the word.
More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com/

Go thy ways, old Jack;
die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be
not forgot upon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring. There live not three good men
unhanged in England; and one of them is fat and
grows old: God help the while! a bad world, I say.
I would I were a weaver; I could sing psalms or any
thing. A plague of all cowards, I say still.
Reply
#22
(11-24-2012, 08:05 PM)Hanno Wrote:
(11-24-2012, 07:50 PM)JoeVoxxPop Wrote: You seem to be holding that this DNA evidence is flawless and is not steeped in proevolution bias in its conclusions.

A fair accusation, JoeVoxxPop!  But I plead not guilty.  Personally, I'm a creationist.  However, I'm not arguing for creationism in this thread.  Instead, I am asking those who think the DNA evidence is convincing how they reconcile their acceptance of evolution with the doctrinal teachings of Adam & Eve and Original Sin (specifically, with regard to Humani Generis).

Strictly for the sake of argument, I am granting that the current & best DNA modeling is more or less decent.  Assuming it is, how does one accept the scientific consensus on evolution with Pius XII's insistence that a Catholic must believe in a 2-person evolutionary bottleneck?
as I said they cannot....there is no logical third way...there is a God and his revealed truth...or there is not...and materialism rules the cosmos
Reply
#23
(11-24-2012, 08:31 PM)JoeVoxxPop Wrote:
(11-24-2012, 08:05 PM)Hanno Wrote:
(11-24-2012, 07:50 PM)JoeVoxxPop Wrote: You seem to be holding that this DNA evidence is flawless and is not steeped in proevolution bias in its conclusions.

A fair accusation, JoeVoxxPop!  But I plead not guilty.  Personally, I'm a creationist.  However, I'm not arguing for creationism in this thread.  Instead, I am asking those who think the DNA evidence is convincing how they reconcile their acceptance of evolution with the doctrinal teachings of Adam & Eve and Original Sin (specifically, with regard to Humani Generis).

Strictly for the sake of argument, I am granting that the current & best DNA modeling is more or less decent.  Assuming it is, how does one accept the scientific consensus on evolution with Pius XII's insistence that a Catholic must believe in a 2-person evolutionary bottleneck?
as I said they cannot....there is no logical third way...there is a God and his revealed truth...or there is not...and materialism rules the cosmos

I agree with you completely.  :asianbow:
Reply
#24
(11-24-2012, 08:05 PM)Hanno Wrote: Strictly for the sake of argument, I am granting that the current & best DNA modeling is more or less decent.  Assuming it is, how does one accept the scientific consensus on evolution with Pius XII's insistence that a Catholic must believe in a 2-person evolutionary bottleneck?

Even the evolutionary biologists' "holy grail" discovery is nothing more than a small piece of circumstantial evidence:

All the Great Apes have 24 chromosome pairs. Humans have only 23. What happened to the extra pair of chromosomes when humans allegedly evolved from apes? Well, Chromosome 2 in humans looks similar to both Chromosome 2 and Chromosome 3 in apes. Therefore, Chromosomes 2 and 3 evolved into one chromosome and the ape became human.

Good luck replicating those "results" in a lab. At this point, it's not a scientific theory, it's a shot-in-the-dark philosophical guess, meant to undermine the dignity of man created in the image and likeness of the one true God.
Reply
#25
(11-24-2012, 08:24 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: CP, the difference between the two is substantial changes.  Macro evolution allows for species change, not just variation.  We're talking about dogs become cats, and lions become bears sort of thing.  Micro evolution deals in accidental changes, "accidental" in the sense that Doce Me uses the word.

Sure, but the mechanism would be the same in both cases, right? That is, both micro and macroevolution would be driven by random mutation, natural selection, and so on. If this is the case, it would seem that we are in need of an explanation as to why these mechanisms can cause evolution within a species without being able to cause a new species to come into being. Here, it does not seem impossible to suggest that changes in quality might in some cases lead to essential change. In fact, saying otherwise might be seen as an unacceptably dualist separation of matter and form, as if the two were entirely separate and form were "out there" somewhere, completely unaffected by anything else.

Also, I wonder if it is a mistake to assume that zoological classifications always correspond to logical or ontological categories. One might argue that the former are in some cases fairly arbitrary. Is there an essential difference between German shepherds and wolves? How about tigers and lions or crows and ravens? It reminds me of Borges's "certain Chinese encyclopedia" in which "animals are divided into: (a) belonging to the Emperor, (b) embalmed, © tame, (d) sucking pigs, (e) sirens, (f) fabulous, (g) stray dogs, (h) included in the present classification, (i) frenzied, (j) innumerable, (k) drawn with a very fine camelhair brush, (l) et cetera, (m) having just broken the water pitcher, (n) that from a long way off look like flies."
Reply
#26
(11-23-2012, 07:04 PM)Hanno Wrote: 2.  The same evidence claims the paternal ancestor of all humanity and the maternal ancestor of all humanity lived thousands of years apart.  "Mitochondrial Eve" and "Y-Chromosomal Adam" were not a couple, which is (again) another assertion that the human population was seeded from a broader group (however small) than just a single pair at a single point in time.

This shouldn't surprise you.  The common male ancestor of all humans is Noah, not Adam.
Reply
#27
(11-23-2012, 10:01 PM)Hanno Wrote: Yes indeed.  Axona is a very able defender of evolution, and I look forward to seeing her thoughts on this.  I actually made the OP because I finally read Humani Generis in its entirety for the first time recently.  I knew that Pius XII had permitted an acceptance of evolution (at least, as it stood in 1950), but I didn't know that he absolutely insisted on a singular pair of first parents.  Given that the since-accumulated "evidence" for evolution almost definitively rules out such a scenario, I think theistic evolution (weak from the start, IMO)  is backed into a pretty tight corner at this point.

I always find it interesting that opponents of evolution try to make science fit in with their theology, rather than the other way around.  If our faith is true, then science is nothing to be afraid of.  If you reject science because you may have to tweak a non-essential component of the faith in order to justify the two, then you don't have faith, you have fear-based fundamentalism.
Reply
#28
(11-24-2012, 03:43 AM)Doce Me Wrote: I understand that there is a fundamental difference, not just a difference of time.  The difference between macro-evolution and micro-evolution is that the former would is a change from one species to another species, but the latter is just a change within a species.  The idea is that one species is essentially different than another, but the changes within a species are only accidental.  That one sort of change is possible doesn't prove that the other sort of change is possible, even over time.

Micro-evolution:  indo-european to italic.  Italic to latin and osco-umbrian. latin to vulgar latin.  Vulgar Latin to ibero-romance, gallo-romance, italo-romance, daco-romance.  Ibero-romance to spanish and portuguese, gallo-romance to catalan, french, north italian, italo-romance to south italian and sardinian, daco-romance to romanian and dalmatian.

Macro-evolution:  indo-european to spanish, portuguese, french, italian, etc.
Reply
#29
(11-24-2012, 08:05 PM)Hanno Wrote: Strictly for the sake of argument, I am granting that the current & best DNA modeling is more or less decent.  Assuming it is, how does one accept the scientific consensus on evolution with Pius XII's insistence that a Catholic must believe in a 2-person evolutionary bottleneck?

IF it could actually be proven, and was more than just a hypothesis, then the faith would necessarily need to be modified.  Gasp, shock, horror, the earth actually does revolve around the sun, for example.
Reply
#30
(11-24-2012, 08:56 PM)Servus Immaculatae Wrote: Good luck replicating those "results" in a lab. At this point, it's not a scientific theory, it's a shot-in-the-dark philosophical guess, meant to undermine the dignity of man created in the image and likeness of the one true God.

False dichotomy.  It's not either 'scientific law' or 'shot in the dark philosophical guess.'  What you described is a hypothesis.  It isn't proven, but it is the best guess of what is observed.

By your understanding of what can be scientifically proven, we should never hypothesize about what happened before we were born, since there's no way we could be absolutely certain of what happened.  Without many of such of those 'shot-in-the-dark' philosophical guesses, you'd still be living in a hut in africa, and you'd be the father of 12 children, 10 or 11 of whom died from malaria, measles or polio, or small pox, before they ever reached their 10th birthday.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)