Fact: We are apes

[Anthony Puccetti]

Are you denying cause and effect? Sounds like it. The present is the way it is because the past was the way it was. The commonalities would not be there unless evolution happened.

How do you know that natural selection and genetic mutation are the causes of present organisms? They are non-creative processes. The natural means by which species are produced is conception or reproduction of individual creatures. What would prevent the same "patterns" of similarities from existing if there were separate origins for the different primary species (cats,dogs,horses)?

Apes is a Family. Families consist of many species in different genera. Cats are a separate species from apes. So are monkeys. But humans, gorillas, chimps, and monkeys are all in the order Primate.

Primates is a misleading classification because it implies,based upon similar physical characteristics,that they have a common ancestry. That cannot be proven by cross-analysis of bone structures and genetic material,because it does not say anything about reproductive links.

That's not how it works.

Common descent doesn't happen through reproductive connections? It's true that the theory of evolution doesn't work that way,but biological descent does.

At one point there was a single species. See the diagram in Origin of Species. This species split into 2. Those 2 species did not interbreed. The descendent species of one of those went on to be gorillas. The descendent species of the other produced a species that was the common ancestor of chimps and humans. That common ancestor produced another species so now there were 2. Call them C and H. They didn't interbreed. One of the descendent species of C are modern chimps. One of the descendent species of H are humans. But in the process, the H lineage produced several intermediate species from H to H. sapiens and several species that are now extinct. For instance, our immediate ancestor species was H. ergastor. H. ergastor migrated out of Africa. The population in Europe evolved to H. neandertals. The population in China to H. pekiensis, the one in SE Asia to H. erectus, and the population back in Africa to H. sapiens.

This is reading biological connections into pre-history that cannot be verified and which do not logically follow from the evidence that is used to support it.[/QUOTE]

If it didn't happen, then the present would look differently.

How do you know this? Has anyone done experiments upon natural history itself to see what would follow from a single species?

The narrative of meteor impacts on the moon are things that "supposedly happened in pre-historic time". After all, no one has seen in the last 3,000 years a meteor impact on the moon. But do you doubt that meteor impacts did not happen? Do you doubt that the narrative is a "demonstrable fact"? Why not? Because you can see the crators on the moon today. Those crators are demonstrable fact. The only viable explanation is meteor impact in the past.

Except that the meteors are not there,only craters. Its strange that meteors that were solid enough to pass through the atmosphere without disintegrating and make deep,permanent craters on the earth would disappear completely,whereas the craters are still there,perfectly shaped.
I'm not denying the possibility that it happened,but it does not seem probable that the meteors would disappear but the craters would not. I also doubt that the meteors would all be perfectly rounded like the craters are.

 

[Orogeny]

The universe makes no sense

Aha. Now we come to the crux of your issue: Because the universe makes no sense to you, the universe must not make sense to anybody else. Many of us (TEs) have spent years and years of our lives studying the universe, or parts of the universe in an effort to understand how they work. We have found the universe to be systematic and orderly, which is exactly what one would expect from a creator. One certainly wouldn't expect a universe that didn't make sense.

Your incredulity is noted.

 

[Chanya]

Yes it does exist and it does make sense, if you think pizza bones are comparable then you clearly haven't even begun to understand what the image of God means. What it means is that we (ie. all humans) bear some of God's communicable attributes eg we are moral, creative, relational beings (here's a helpful article)

Frankly, if you don't believe this then you probably shouldn't be posting in the Christians only section.



Ummm...he did

Who are you to decide for me how I identify myself, whether I'm a Christian or not? I thought only your God was supposed to be the judge of that.

And umm no, he didn't. Where's the evidence of that? And don't tell me the bible, some old book of desert myths doesn't prove anything.

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

The Catechism makes it clear that accepting evolution is allowed, even encouraged. In Part I, Section 2, Chapter 1, Article 1, paragraph 183, the Catechism of the Catholic Church has:

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. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers.
​

-Catechism of the Catholic Church

This is not an endorsement of the theory of evolution,it is an acknowledgement that science has enriched our knowledge. The theory of evolution makes particular claims about the history of organisms that cannot be verified and are not necessary by logic,and so cannot be regarded as true knowledge.

Of course, you are correct that it isn't a required article of faith, any more than it is required to believe that the earth is round, goes around the sun, or that the holocaust happened. Denying any of those, just like denying evolution, won't get you excommunicated.

Belief in the theory of evolution does is not compelled by reason and observation and evidence,like those other beliefs. That the earth is round has always been known by the curvature of the horizon and suggested by the observation that the sun and moon are spheres. The sun and earth seem to revolve around each other. The sun does not seem to be stationary,like Galileo believed.

Demonstrably false. As you can see from the section listed below, it's not just mentioning the scientific account (which would be enough to support evolution if not followed by a statement in disagreement anyway), but is speaking in their own words. I've highlighted some sentences that make that clear.

The place of human beings in the history of this evolving universe, as it has been charted by modern sciences, can only be seen in its complete reality in the light of faith, as a personal history of the engagement of the triune God with creaturely persons. According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the “Big Bang” and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.​

​

Using one's own words to summarize the theory does not amount to an endorsement of it.
I can do the same thing,even though I don't believe the theory. Pope Benedict often summarizes false opinions in his books. If you took some paragraphs out of context,you would think he actually approved of relativism,agnosticism,scientific positivism,liberation theology,paganism,historical criticism that denies the supernatural elements of the Bible,dissident theologians who deny the divine origin of Jesus,the authority of the Church,the priesthood and Church doctrines.

What part of "combine to make a convincing case" do you fail to understand?

I do understand it. That sentence refers not to the whole theory of evolution but only to the origin of humans from a humanoid population in Africa about 150,000 years ago. It is a convincing case,but still unprovable and open to reasonable doubt. The sentence begins with an admission that the story of human origins is subject to revision. The claim that the decisive factor was a continually increasing brain size sounds shallow,and the claim about biological evolution being recast as cultural and social evolution makes evolution into a kind of all-pervading force​

 

[sfs]

How do you know that natural selection and genetic mutation are the causes of present organisms?

Mutation and natural selection (along with several other processes) are the best available explanations for the diversity of present organisms. If someone offers an alternative cause of present organisms that has more predictive power, then scientists will adopt that theory. If someone offers a theory that has even remotely similar predictive power, they will seriously consider it. Since no such theories are on offer, however, the point is moot.

They are non-creative processes.

Mutation is a creative process. Every mutation creates an organism that did not previously exist.

Except that the meteors are not there,only craters.

Meteors are moving rather fast, you know -- they wouldn't just be sitting in the crater. They're reduced to fragments and vapor when they hit, and we do indeed find the remains of impacting meteors (both from asteroids that have hit the Earth, and from asteroids that have hit the moon and splashed debris all the way to Earth.)

Its strange that meteors that were solid enough to pass through the atmosphere without disintegrating and make deep,permanent craters on the earth would disappear completely,whereas the craters are still there,perfectly shaped.

Beside learning the fact that they haven't disappeared completely, you might also note that the ground is a lot harder than the atmosphere.

I'm not denying the possibility that it happened,but it does not seem probable that the meteors would disappear but the craters would not. I also doubt that the meteors would all be perfectly rounded like the craters are.

The craters don't reflect the shape of the meteor -- they're much bigger than that -- but the shape of the blast wave that carves out the crater.

Given that you don't understand the science involved, how can you assess the probability of these things occurring?

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

I'd settle for just a small hint of his existence.

The evidence of God's existence is the existence of the universe. Only an all-powerful being could make the physical world come into existence out of nothing,because of the absolute difference between existence and nothingness. The earth shows purposeful order and wisdom in the way life is sustained. And life in creatures is spirit. It is super-natural power over nature,making the natural processes of organisms work.

That humans are created in the image of God is evident from our intelligence,free will,our primal sense of moral law,capacity to love,and desire to know and communicate with our Creator.

Romans,Chapter 1,
19 For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them. 20 Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse; 21 for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened. 22 While claiming to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes. 24 Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

Mutation and natural selection (along with several other processes) are the best available explanations for the diversity of present organisms.

Have you ever considered diversity of origin?

If someone offers an alternative cause of present organisms that has more predictive power, then scientists will adopt that theory. If someone offers a theory that has even remotely similar predictive power, they will seriously consider it. Since no such theories are on offer, however, the point is moot.

There's no need for an elaborate theory of evolution and common descent because there's no need for there to have been only one ancestral species for all species.

Mutation is a creative process. Every mutation creates an organism that did not previously exist.

Organisms are produced by acts of reproduction. Mutations don't go very far in modifying species. They affect such things as pigmentation,growth,and resistance to disease.

Meteors are moving rather fast, you know -- they wouldn't just be sitting in the crater. They're reduced to fragments and vapor when they hit, and we do indeed find the remains of impacting meteors (both from asteroids that have the Earth, and from asteroids that have hit the moon and splashed debris all the way to Earth.)

That doesn't make sense. The meteors would have covered over the crater in a mound,fragmented or not. They would not have evaporated. If they were solid enough to pass through the atmosphere without disintegrating then they would not disintegrate completely upon hitting the earth.

Beside learning the fact that they haven't disappeared completely, you might also note that the ground is a lot harder than the atmosphere.

If they haven't disappeared completely,why are they not covering the craters? And how do you know what are the remains of a meteor if you don't know what it was composed of?

The fact that the ground is much harder than the atmosphere is besides the point. It is the act of passing through the atmosphere that causes meteors to disintegrate.

The craters don't reflect the shape of the meteor -- they're much bigger than that -- but the shape of the blast wave that carves out the crater.

A meteor hitting the earth would not cause a blast wave like a nuclear bomb explosion. And since the supposed meteors were much bigger than the craters,it does not make sense to say that the crater was caused by blast waves.

Given that you don't understand the science involved, how can you assess the probability of these things occurring?

The explanation you have given is not convincing.

 

[Deaver]

I'd settle for just a small hint of his existence.

Let me refer you to this article.

Man, Created in the Image of God: How Man is Unique Among All Other Creatures on Earth

 

[sfs]

Have you ever considered diversity of origin?

Yes.

There's no need for an elaborate theory of evolution and common descent because there's no need for there to have been only one ancestral species for all species.

As I already wrote, common descent explains and predicts data vastly better than any theory of diverse origins. That's the reality you have to deal with, and the reality you have to change if you want to budge scientists' acceptance of common descent.

Organisms are produced by acts of reproduction. Mutations don't go very far in modifying species. They affect such things as pigmentation,growth,and resistance to disease.

They don't have to go very far in modifying species in any one generation, or even one thousand generations. And they affect everything that the genome codes for, which is to say, every aspect of the organism.

That doesn't make sense. The meteors would have covered over the crater in a mound,fragmented or not. They would not have evaporated. If they were solid enough to pass through the atmosphere without disintegrating then they would not disintegrate completely upon hitting the earth.

It's simple physics. A moderate-sized meteor (big enough to cause a crater) hits with the energy of a large thermonuclear bomb, because it's moving very fast. That much energy does far more damage to the impacting body than the atmosphere did.

If they haven't disappeared completely,why are they not covering the craters? And how do you know what are the remains of a meteor if you don't know what it was composed of?

Go look up Meteor Crater (the one in Arizona) in Wikipedia and get some idea about real meteor craters, rather than relying on your imagination. The meteorite was about 50 meters across, and excavated a crater 1200 meters across and 170 meters deep. Fragments of the meteorite were scattered around the area; they can be identified as part of a meteorite because they have the characteristic composition of a nickel-iron meteorite, many of which have been studied. Most of the impactor vaporized, however.

The fact that the ground is much harder than the atmosphere is besides the point. It is the act of passing through the atmosphere that causes meteors to disintegrate.

Many do disintegrate. Small ones slow down enough in the atmosphere that they don't hit very hard. Large ones aren't slowed down enough, and hit very hard indeed.

A meteor hitting the earth would not cause a blast wave like a nuclear bomb explosion. And since the supposed meteors were much bigger than the craters,it does not make sense to say that the crater was caused by blast waves.

You badly need to learn some basic physics.

 

[Orogeny]

Anthony- You severely misunderstand the physics behind bolide impact. Here is a simple, well-written introduction to meteorite impact: Coesite, Stishovite, Diamonds, Tektites, Impact Metamophism, and Related Features

 

[gluadys]

And this is precisely how ToE fools religious people whose God clearly states otherwise.
Evolution by literal definition is true, if you are actually reaching for such a semantic-based argument. But what is the ToE idea of evolution?

I expect it is not what you think it is. There are a great many strawman caricatures of the theory of evolution floating around.

What finishing evolutionary step is needed for for common descent to be true?

"Finishing evolutionary step"? What is that supposed to mean. Common descent focuses more on beginning steps--the step of speciation which sends different population groups of the same species down different evolutionary pathways.

How does allele frequency prove ToE? It doesn't.

You are quite right. It doesn't. Changes in allele frequency are the fact. The theory of evolution explains the causes of this fact, what makes them occur and the consequences for the species.

The evidence for the theory is in observations which verify these causes and consequences.

The fact of the matter is, it is clearly stated how Creation happened, and no matter how much you bend the context, it just does not fit. It also contradicts many other aspects of the Bible itself outside of the specific idea of Creation.

I don't know why you think evolution is an alternative to creation. Many Christians, myself included, see evolution as consistent with creation.

And what exactly are you trying to imply? That because we observe limited evolution by it's literal definition, that it must be proof of common descent?

No, that's looking at it backwards about.

It is a matter of understanding how the evolution we observe occurs. If we understand that process, what makes it tick, we can then do two interrelated things:

1. Look for evidence of the same process occurring in different times and places, and
2. Look for the consequences that would be the logical and natural result of that process.

It is no different from what Newton did with gravity. He thought carefully about the observed consequences of gravity (like an apple falling from a tree) and asked "does gravity apply beyond the earth?" and "If gravity applies beyond the earth, how would that affect the moon? other planets?"

Just so, scientists study the evolution they can observe in a few years or even several decades to figure out what is happening. Then they ask "Does evolution only happen when we see it or has it been occurring over a long time? How would we tell if it has been occurring for millennia?" and "What are the logical consequences of a long period of evolution? What evidence would we expect to see today, if a species that existed 400 million years ago had split into two different groups and these had followed two different evolutionary pathways?"

As they have pursued the answers to questions like these, they have developed both the theory of common descent and a great deal of supporting evidence for it.

We seen micro-organisms change often and in mighty ways, but they never make that switch.

What switch? I don't know that the theory of evolution calls for any "switch". I know the theory calls for speciation and the adaptation of species through natural selection as well as other means of change. But it also calls for an unbroken continuity of lineages over history that seems to be incompatible with a "switch".

Playing a game of semantics, as in you are commencing with the circularity that I called out and trying to dance around with words.
I stated that we have not observed complete transition, and you are circulating your argument over and over.

Please define "complete transition". We have observed speciation. Is that not a complete transition?

We have also seen some rapid adaptations, some of them connected to those speciations.

 

[gluadys]

Evolution that is necessary for common descent is not fact, mutations/recombination/etc. are.

What do you mean by "evolution that is necessary for common descent"?


Those who hold that we have ample evidence for common descent don't rely on any mechanisms over and above those seen in observed evolution. What makes you think those are not sufficient for common descent?

 

[gluadys]

Ok let's try again with that first question which you don't seem to want to answer: What do you take the 'image of God' to be?

And secondly (but I'd prefer you to answer the first question): what would you expect this 'hint of existence' to look like?

1. Nothing, because it doesn't exist and it makes no sense! It's like asking me what I take pizza bones to be.

Before you can say it doesn't exist, you have to have some idea of what it is, or what it is supposed to be. You mention pizza bones. I am sure you have a concept of what a pizza is and of what a bone is: so you can validly say "pizza bones don't exist".

I have a concept of what a unicorn is. When I say unicorns don't exist, I don't mean that something I cannot describe doesn't exist. I mean that a horse with a horn on its forehead doesn't exist.

If you cannot describe what "image of God" is (or is supposed to be), how can you say it doesn't exist? You need to be able to provide a description of what you say doesn't exist.

When you do, I might agree with you. It is like the priest who listens to someone who claims they don't believe in God. "Tell me about the god you don't believe in" he asks. And they do. And most of the time it is not the god any Christian would believe in.

So, depending on what you think "image of God" is: you could be right. Maybe your concept of the image of God doesn't exist.

But that doesn't mean Christians are wrong about God making humans in his image. It just means they have a different understanding of what "image of God" means.

2. I would have thought that such a powerful god could at least show his face or voice or do REAL miracles or something of the kind, to make us KNOW he is real and not have to rely on faith.

Why does a self-professed Christian disparage faith? We are supposed to rely on faith. Without faith we have no knowledge at all, not even scientific knowledge.

What is a "real" miracle? And what is it worth?

The evangelists record Jesus healing a man who was paralyzed and had to be carried to him. His friends, unable to get to the door of the house for the crowds, took him up to the roof and made a hole in it to lower their friend to the floor in front of Jesus. And the first thing Jesus said to him was "Your sins are forgiven." When some Pharisee present voiced objections, he then told the man "Take up your bed and walk?" And the man did.

Now let me ask you a few questions here.

Which of these (forgiving sins or healing paralysis) is a "real" miracle? I would say both of them are.


What would make one more real than the other? Seeing it with your own eyes?

Well, did seeing the second miracle with their own eyes change the mind of the Pharisees? Did they begin to have faith in Jesus because they saw this and other miracles with visible consequences? Not at all. They later came up with the explanation that his power came from Satan.

So what was seeing with the eyes worth, when it clashed with what they believed? Despite the old proverb seeing is not believing.

St. Anselm was right to say "I believe in order to understand."

Belief is not based on understanding. Understanding is based on belief.


You want to KNOW God is real. That knowledge can only come through faith, yet you don't want to rely on faith. Is that not a contradiction?

Why do you think the essence of Christianity is summed up in a creed--a statement of faith?

I can assure you from personal experience (and I know many others here can as well) that you can know God is real. That, after all, is part of the ministry of the Holy Spirit: to be the presence of God within, to witness to Christ in our hearts. But you can miss that knowledge if you think it needs to be grounded in what you can see with your eyes and hear with your ears.

In the final analysis, knowledge depends on faith, not vice versa.

Yes it does exist and it does make sense, if you think pizza bones are comparable then you clearly haven't even begun to understand what the image of God means. What it means is that we (ie. all humans) bear some of God's communicable attributes eg we are moral, creative, relational beings (here's a helpful article)

Let me refer you to this article.

Man, Created in the Image of God: How Man is Unique Among All Other Creatures on Earth

Interesting that both a pro- and an anti- evolutionist linked you to a description of "image of God" and that the two descriptions tally quite well.

I am going to take it for granted that you agree that humans are creative intelligent self-aware beings with a sense of moral conscience and a yearning we may call spiritual.

So the question would be "Can we identify this description of humanity with the phrase 'image of God'?"

And umm no, he didn't. Where's the evidence of that? And don't tell me the bible, some old book of desert myths doesn't prove anything.

Strangely, I would agree with you. The bible is not proof, or evidence, of anything. It is a book of great value, but that is not the basis of its value.

On the other hand, when the bible is taken seriously, God does use it to make himself known to you, so it is not to be neglected either. One thing the bible does convey is the experience and wisdom of people who did know God; they may have sometimes expressed that knowledge of God in myths but it doesn't mean they were speaking of something unreal. They were speaking of what they knew in their bones to be real and true.

 

[wayseer]

And with that, you admitted that we are in fact apes. Yes, we chose to live the way we do, athough I'm sure early on it was instinctive. God didn't make us be the way we are, we did. The things you mention, cultural things, what we eat etc, yes it sets us apart from the rest of the apes. It makes us human. Just like orangutans set themselves apart from the rest of the apes by mainly living in trees.

Good - so behaviour is important.

And the 'fact' that we 'choose' to be different proves that we are not apes - we construct our own reality.

Now, just to extend a little on your statement here, is Jesus of Nazareth the same person as the Christ of Faith?

Don't give up - you're doing fine - I'm sure you can connect the dots.

 

[LinuxUser]

Who are you to decide for me how I identify myself, whether I'm a Christian or not? I thought only your God was supposed to be the judge of that.

And umm no, he didn't. Where's the evidence of that? And don't tell me the bible, some old book of desert myths doesn't prove anything.

I believe he is referring to the website here. If you say your don't believe than it is dishonest to keep the Christian symbol in your profile.

 

[Chanya]

I believe he is referring to the website here. If you say your don't believe than it is dishonest to keep the Christian symbol in your profile.

I've changed it, but don't think for a minute it has anything to do with your post.

 

[KerrMetric]

I've changed it, but don't think for a minute it has anything to do with your post.

Chanya, on your comments about science I agree with you. Creationists are for the most part uneducated in science and will never be different. They just can't get it, either because of intransigence or being dumb. Sometimes the former, usually the latter.

But you as an atheist should not be posting here.

 

[mark kennedy]

I've changed it, but don't think for a minute it has anything to do with your post.

You should know, this is a Christian only forum.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Who are you to decide for me how I identify myself, whether I'm a Christian or not? I thought only your God was supposed to be the judge of that.

And umm no, he didn't. Where's the evidence of that? And don't tell me the bible, some old book of desert myths doesn't prove anything.

The odds of life coming about is less then 0.01% over every 4 billion years. And the smartest people in the world are at a complete loss of how the universe came from nothing. Put them together and you have practical impossibility.
What are you going to go on, impossible odds or God?

 

[pgp_protector]

Hey man, I'm trying to abide by the rules right now, you're the one who keeps talking to me.

This area (Physical & Life Sciences) is open to all.
And some times you even get good debates, though you'll be tempted to put some users on Ignore quite quickly.