- This topic has 1 reply, 6 voices, and was last updated 19 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
From my understanding this is actually an area where we as Catholics can disagree on. I need to be careful how I phrase this. Let’s see, umm… We can disagree as long as the scientific theory, hyposthesis or what have you does not contradict what the Church knows to be true thru revelation. For example, if a theory says that God did not create the cosmos, then that would obviously be in opposition to what the Church teaches. But not everything in science or rather evolution is necessarily in opposition. Let me know your thoughts.
~Victor
I’m going to hop in because, well, it’s fun.
” title=”Smile” />God gave us a brain and the ability to think for a reason. Yes, we are corrupt and imperfect due to the Fall, but there are certain things with which one cannot argue from a reasonable and logical perspective.
Microevolution happens. Dog breeders, gardeners, scientists — all can prove this easily.
Macroevolution? Apes turning into man, as the theory is often simplified? Perhaps, perhaps not.
What people are often arguing about is not truly evolution, but biogenesis – life from unlife. How would a mass of chemicals take on the aspects of life? Some famous experiments showing that lightning passing through the proper chemical atmosphere would general protein strands have been later proven to be based on false assumptions…so the whole biogenesis thing remains a bit of a mystery.
Even if one can point to life from inogarnic chemicals, you always end back at “in the beginning”. How did the universe start? Where did the matter that became part of what we’ve called The Big Bang come from and what tipped it all off?
The evolution argument is, in my opinion, just a tiny sliver of the really interesting things to question.
” title=”Cool” />
I always wonder why they came up with the theory. If you take an organic item –say, an apple — and give it time, it breaks down to simpler forms. How did the complex derive out of the simple, since nature doesn’t operate that way?
If evolution is a true picture of how life came to be in the universe, than it seems to me to demand a God, pushing things to do what their natural inclination doesn’t want them to do.
Well said and I agree Marc. Either way your still left without an answer about “In the beggining”.
For me, I had a bigger problem with microevolution then macro. And I really held an open mind on this one. Short story….
While going to school, my professor who was a topnoch doctor from USC was puffed up with her involvement with “Lucy” and some fellow named White who is on the frontline of searching for missing links and such. Anyways, long story short, she was explaning to us about mutations and how they happen. Towards the end I noticed that all the mutations she was talkin about were “negative mutations” as they call them. Like a person who has mental retardation and such. So I asked a simple question which led to the following dialogue:
[b:2wb9iirm]Me:[/b:2wb9iirm]”Do you have an example of a positive mutation?”
[b:2wb9iirm]Doctor:[/b:2wb9iirm] “The mutation of ape to man”
[b:2wb9iirm]Me:[/b:2wb9iirm] “I mean something I can see now”
[b:2wb9iirm]Doctor:[/b:2wb9iirm] “Well, it takes millions of years”
[b:2wb9iirm]Me:[/b:2wb9iirm] “I know, but shouldnt we see atleast phases or something”
[b:2wb9iirm]Doctor:[/b:2wb9iirm] “Well, not necessarily”
[b:2wb9iirm]Me:[/b:2wb9iirm] “Well I’m just saying that man has been putting things into writing for some 400 centuries atleast and we have seen nothing.”
[b:2wb9iirm]Doctor:[/b:2wb9iirm] “It could be something at a molecular level that we may not be able to see without technology”
[b:2wb9iirm]Me:[/b:2wb9iirm] “Well, my head is shaped kinda of odd. So odd that I’m betting that if they found my remains I would be either a step back or a step forward in evolution”Conversation went on, but I’ll leave it at that.
~Victor
You guys all made excellent points and I agree with you. I dont know if I’ll bring anything new to the table but here goes. I think we can all belive in evolution up to a certain point, where that point is? I don’t know. Certainly not at the point of creation, it’d have to be much further along in the “evolution timeline”..if that’s a good way to say it. I believe in evolution, just not too long ago the Liger didn’t exist, but now it does. Will it survive? Probably not without human involvment, but that’s evolution right there. To wrap it up though, I dont think man came from apes or monkeys… just ’cause we’re similar doesn’t mean we came from one another.
” title=”Smile” />
I’m not sure if a Liger is any significant form of evolution. There was no shift in the genetic pool per se. No mutation occured. Now if a Tiger grew wings WITHOUT mixing without any other species, now that would be evolution!!
~Victor
Well doesn’t evolution have to start somewhere??
Maybe a Liger is not a new ‘species’, just like when they mix chihuahas and Miniture Pinchers. What do you get? People call them mutts or just mixed breed. But lets say that somehow this new breed beat out the other two breed in nature (ie; tigers and lions) sometime in the future. If this new breed (the Liger) was stronger, smarter, faster and better; the dominant species. Wouldn’t that be a small step of evolution??
[quote:3ielw5hh]But lets say that somehow this new breed beat out the other two breed in nature (ie; tigers and lions) sometime in the future. If this new breed (the Liger) was stronger, smarter, faster and better; the dominant species. Wouldn’t that be a small step of evolution??[/quote:3ielw5hh]
Are you talking about [i:3ielw5hh]survival of the fittest[/i:3ielw5hh]? By [i:3ielw5hh]survival of the fittest[/i:3ielw5hh] Darwin did not mean that the toughest will survive, the swiftest will win, the smartest will succeed, or the biggest will dominate. What Darwin meant was something far different. Darwin said that the organism that best “fits” its environment had the best chance of survival; hence, the term “survival of the fittest.” The plant or animal best “fitted” to its natural environment, according to Darwin, would be the most likely to survive and thrive.
This isn’t really evolution as I generally think of it, but rather survival according to external factors. Can anyone think of an example of an animal that is currently going thru a DNA change? Where the acids within are literally changing or even rearranging themselves. From my understading there is nothing like that known to man. Anything we have now had some kind of intelligent intervention. Nevertheless, if they do manage to find something that is going thru a POSITIVE DNA alteration which is making the species grow wings or something of that manner, it would not shatter my faith…
” title=”Wink” />~Victor
This isn’t really evolution as I generally think of it, but rather survival according to external factors. Can anyone think of an example of an animal that is currently going thru a DNA change? Where the acids within are literally changing or even rearranging themselves. From my understading there is nothing like that known to man. Anything we have now had some kind of intelligent intervention. Nevertheless, if they do manage to find something that is going thru a POSITIVE DNA alteration which is making the species grow wings or something of that manner, it would not shatter my faith…
” title=”Wink” />~Victor[/quote]
Well why would the DNA of an animal have to change if it is living in it’s natural environment??? The only way I see DNA changing is by mixing different breeds, to create something different. That’s how the American Boxer (dog) was created. See if the strongest, fittest, and smartest were the ones to survive then after that group you’d get an even better form of the speices, and oh I dont know in a million years or so you’d get from a dinasour to an alligator or something. If the mixture of a species creates a a weaker animal or an animal that can’t survive in the environmental conditions that there buddies are living in then it would die off and we’d never hear of it again. How else is evolution going to take place?…
To me, it doesn’t make sense that some animal a long long long time ago decided that “Hey, I want to eat from the trees above not the bushes or grass, so I’m gonna stretch my neck and hopefully one day I’ll have a long neck and in a million years my relatives can eat from the tree” (Giraffe)… Does that make sense at all??? Not to me. [b:mpj998lv]I’m basically agreeing with you here…lol
” title=”Very Happy” /> [/b:mpj998lv]
[quote:30g29kvk]To me, it doesn’t make sense that some animal a long long long time ago decided that “Hey, I want to eat from the trees above not the bushes or grass, so I’m gonna stretch my neck and hopefully one day I’ll have a long neck and in a million years my relatives can eat from the tree” (Giraffe)… Does that make sense at all??? Not to me. [/quote:30g29kvk]
Actually, it doesn’t make sense at all. That’s Lamarck’s theory of evolution, and it predates Darwin. I can’t talk much about the whole religious aspect to evolution, but I took sophomore biology and this is the only part of it I remember in any detail.With the giraffes, it would be more that little mutant baby giraffes were born who had longer legs and longer necks. They went to eat with their ordinary-looking brothers and sisters and could reach leaves that were higher up, so they ate more, survived longer, and produced more little mutant baby giraffes with longer necks. So all the short-necked giraffes died out because the long-necked ones were eating more, taking more food for themselves, and having more offspring. So eventually either the long-necked giraffes became a different species from the short-necks, or the short-necks died out.
Right now it’s really hard to observe any animals undergoing genetic change because it takes thousands of years to get a big enough population of little mutant baby whatevers to consider it a change in species. The examples we were given of modern evolution were in diseases, because they adapt more quickly (giving rise to the superbug phenomenon). Since you can get a little mutant baby virus in fifteen minutes, which sure beats our twenty-year generations by a long shot, they’re better to study for evolution.
So how do you suppose those baby giraffes that grew with slightly longer necks came to be?? Was it just some mutation of nature or is it possible that the shorter necked giraffes mated with something that had a longer neck?? Without the long necks giraffes are basically the same as horses, camels, zebras, donkeys etc… Evolution is always interesting.
Freak of nature mutation. Offspring of two species are usually infertile. It’s like how, in one family, you’ll usually have children with different heights, weights, and hair colours.
Giraffes are similar to other species because, essentially, in that area of the world, somewhere along the line, they diverged from a different species, which is the ancestor for deer and cattle (it looks like a horse or zebra, but is different, having cloven hooves and chewing its cud, and has a closer ancestor to them than to horses).
[quote:1k2g1h9f]Freak of nature mutation. Offspring of two species are usually infertile. [/quote:1k2g1h9f]
I think Candleflame meant to write, “Offspring of two [u:1k2g1h9f]different[/u:1k2g1h9f] species are usually infertile.” I was in Ecology and Evolution Biology 101 last semester, lol. It is like how a cross between a horse and a donkey makes a mule, but two mules cannot come together to make more baby mules; mules are infertile.
Good explanation of evolution, Candleflame. I could never have summarized evolutionary theory and processes as well as you just did!
” title=”Very Happy” />
[quote:3snc4l4k]Freak of nature mutation.[/quote:3snc4l4k]
This is exactly what I am talking about. My professor was unable to give me ONE example of this. All examples given were “negative mutations”(down sydrome, etc.). She was unable to give a single example of a “positive mutation”, which the mutant giraffes would fall into. Of course I was asking her for an example we can see now. If “freak of nature mutation” or “positive mutation” as my professor called it exist then we should see an example of it now. At least the beggining stages or something. No such thing exist to my knowledge. As a matter of fact we see quite the opposite. He have tons of negative mutations but no positive mutations. Why can we only see one but not the other?
Even with human assistance of trying to modify the DNA strand we have not been able to get a positive mutation. Every attempt has failed. Anything we have tried has turned out as negative mutation and it actually dies over time. Maybe someday the science world will discover this positive mutation, but I won’t hold my breath.
~Victor
~Victor
[quote:2964guku]Why can we only see one but not the other? [/quote:2964guku]
We wouldn’t necessarily know it if we saw it. Mutations like that take a [b:2964guku]long[/b:2964guku] time to develop.
Perhaps that is true. But don’t you find that a bit convenient?
Imagine this conversation:[b:2wnroy00]Student:[/b:2wnroy00] Professor can we take a look at some negative mutations in the works in the lab?
[b:2wnroy00]Professor:[/b:2wnroy00] Sure, we have several examples for you to look at.
[b:2wnroy00]Student:[/b:2wnroy00] Can we take a look at some positiive mutatoins in the works in the lab?
[b:2wnroy00]Professor:[/b:2wnroy00] Oh that, sorry we can’t cause it takes a [b:2wnroy00]long time[/b:2wnroy00] to see.Why doesn’t negative mutations take a long time?
I suppose all they have to do is keep on making the amount of time longer every time to avoid the question.~Victor
I personally don’t find it suspicious; if any field were bent on finding proof and full of people happy to come up with a hypothesis to tear down another, it’s science.
So what about examples derived from fossils, or diverged species? As in, you can see that genetically and physically two organisms are close, and there are examples of shared ancestry, but the two species are specifically different? I’m currently thinking the difference between the Przewalski’s Horse and ordinary horse.
[quote:9qat2y2i]I personally don’t find it suspicious; if any field were bent on finding proof and full of people happy to come up with a hypothesis to tear down another, it’s science. [/quote:9qat2y2i]
Of course, that is part of what drives people to look for answers and they (scientist) are always trying to improve on each others discoveries. Which is to be expected. No qualms about this at all.
[quote:9qat2y2i]So what about examples derived from fossils, or diverged species? As in, you can see that genetically and physically two organisms are close, and there are examples of shared ancestry, but the two species are specifically different? I’m currently thinking the difference between the Przewalski’s Horse and ordinary horse.[/quote:9qat2y2i]
Candleflame, all we have is bones. No genetic material that concludes a positive mutation has been found. But to further show you this missing positive mutation, why not make that connection now with what we have?
Like the close link between us and the ape?Candleflame I’m not resisting this because I don’t want it to be true. If we have evidence to support it then I will embrace it. It’s no big deal. I’m simply stating that there is a BIG MISSING LINK.
~Victor
I think it’s easier to make a negative mutation than a positive one. You’d have to get everything perfect in the DNA strand in order to get a positive mutation. When you look at all life on this planet and how beatiful it is, isn’t it a wonder how pure randomness (big bang, million year mutations etc..)could create such perfect harmony?? It just works to well for me, I’m glad I believe in God.
And how about a snake and a lizard who live in the same environment?? They both live in their natural environment, they’re both very similar biologically, yet one has legs and one doesn’t. Why is that? According to the theory that animals that the animals that adapt better to the conditions around them, shouldn’t one of these two animals be extinct? Or did I misunderstand.
[quote:vni8wcfn]shouldn’t one of these two animals be extinct? Or did I misunderstand.[/quote:vni8wcfn]
I see what you mean Rick. Although they may say that both species (snake and lizard) were in a seperate environment that was better suited to either have no legs or with legs. Later in time the enviroment allowed for both. Which would explain why they live together now. Truth is Rick that all they have to do is think of different enviroments and different catastrophes that will explain every animal. Which is very doable and poof you have yourself an explanation.
~Victor
” title=”Smile” />
” title=”Cool” />
” title=”Wink” />
” title=”Very Happy” /> [/b:mpj998lv]
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.