Is the theory of evolution moral and ethical

[Larniavc]

Isnt it Evolution theory which says that man was created like a dumb ape like animal who needed to evolve into a man over thousands of years? DO you actually think that Catholics believe that nonsense?

No. ToE does not say that man was created like a dumb ape.

No. Catholics don't believe that dumb nonsense: nobody who knows what ToE is about does. You've been lied to by whoever told you that ToE says that man was created like a dumb ape.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Is the theory of evolution really a theory

Yes, a scientific theory. And a very solid one at that.

; there are rules governing scientific theories and I wonder if scientists have bent the rules to accommodate the theory of evolution.

Nope.

The most important part of the Theory of Evolution is the word theory.

Scientific theory.

Like atomic theory, germ theory of desease, tectonic theory, theory of gravity, theory of relativity, etc...

Note that this is not the same kind of "theory" as the "theory" that an alien spaceship crashed at Roswell.

Read this for your interest: http://www.notjustatheory.com/

Evolution before Darwin was observations made in real time like caterpillars changing into butterflies rose buds changing into roses and tadpoles changing into frogs.

No, that's not evolution. That's mere development of an individual.

Darwin’s theory is different because it is not observation but speculation about what happened billions of years ago.

No, it's not speculation.
It's the observation of natural selection and the ongoing specialisation of populations towards successful survival and reproduction in their habitat.

The theory of evolution is used by the opponents of Christianity to ridicule the concept of creation so in the first place Christians are defensive.

That's demonstrably false, as most christians have no problems with evolution theory at all. Does the pope use this theory to argue against christianity? The pope has no problems with biology. Neither do the many many christian biologists.

When the Pope say it looks like evolution may be true it is difficult to work out what he is talking about or why he would want to talk about it in the first place.

That's not what he says. It's not nuanced. He flat out states that evolution theory (and big bang) are correct.

Pope Benedict literally stated that evolution is essentially a proven fact.

The theory of evolution is in the same category as the theory of homosex and both are outside of God’s ball park. The main feature of homosex that I can see is that they are born that way. I think there is a saying of Christ, ”Some men are born without testicles, other men castrate themselves for the kingdom of God sake.” Always men and women are required to be chased regardless of how they are born.

I have no idea why you bring up homosexuality. It seems incredibly irrelevant and looks like a rather pathetic attempt to shift the focus.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I don't care what your link said.

How can you not care about what the link says when it directly refutes your claims on what catholics believe? The official view of the vatican is that evolution theory is a solid explanation of how life developed on this planet. That includes humans.

Just answer the question. IS it, or is it not evolution theory which says that man was created like a dumb ape like animal who needed to evolve into a man over tens of thousands of years?

No, that's not what it says.

First of all, humans ARE apes. Just like humans are mammals.
Secondly, we share ancestors with the other great apes, and that dates back to 6 or 7 million years ago for the common ancestor with chimpansees. That ancestor was an ape, but it was not a human and not a chimpansee. Humans and chimps are "cousins" at the species level.

Also, is that what the Vatican believes as well?

The vatican accepts the theory as presented in biology.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Evolution was a proponent of the madness of the Holocaust. There's about as much morals with evolution as there are corners in perfect circles.
You've done a good job of letting evolutionists tell you something that isn't true- there is nothing closer to the truth then the moral absence within evolution.

Evolution is a theory that explains the natural processes that living things are subject to.

It's not a framework that tries to tell you how to organize a society.

Your comment is completely nonsensical.

 

[Armoured]

Is the theory of evolution really a theory; there are rules governing scientific theories and I wonder if scientists have bent the rules to accommodate the theory of evolution.

The most important part of the Theory of Evolution is the word theory. Evolution before Darwin was observations made in real time like caterpillars changing into butterflies rose buds changing into roses and tadpoles changing into frogs. Darwin’s theory is different because it is not observation but speculation about what happened billions of years ago.


The theory of evolution is used by the opponents of Christianity to ridicule the concept of creation so in the first place Christians are defensive. When the Pope say it looks like evolution may be true it is difficult to work out what he is talking about or why he would want to talk about it in the first place.


The theory of evolution is in the same category as the theory of homosex and both are outside of God’s ball park. The main feature of homosex that I can see is that they are born that way. I think there is a saying of Christ, ”Some men are born without testicles, other men castrate themselves for the kingdom of God sake.” Always men and women are required to be chased regardless of how they are born.

caterpillar-> butterflies and tadpoles-> frogs aren't examples of evolution.

The theory of evolution is in the same category as the theory of homosex and both are outside of God’s ball park.

...o...kay...

 

[Armoured]

Actually its your own response that is the strawman.

Your assertion is also misleading.

Please don't bother to respond further, thank you, have a pleasant day.

How is it misleading?

 

[Strathos]

Well if he meant that homosexual sex and evolution are both things that happen, he would be right...

 

[quatona]

This is a debate forum, if you are going to make assertions then you will be asked to back it up with evidence.

Ok, so you may want to back up your idea as to what the ToE says with evidence.

If you don't understand what you are talking about, or if you don't have any evidence, then its wise not to make assertions in the first place, or to agree with unsupported assertions.

Exactly.

If you don't want me to refer to you as "you all", then perhaps you shouldn't answer questions that were directed toward other people.

Not sure how answering such questions on an open discussion forum renders me "you all", but whatever.

 

[stevevw]

They haven't bent any rules. The theory of evolution makes predictions about what we observe in real time including fossils, genomes, and the physical characteristics of living species and those predictions have turned out to be exceedingly accurate.

Didn't a lot of scientists say that our DNA was mostly junk. Even when we started to find function they still wanted to believe it was mostly junk. That was because having so much junk help supported their theory. It would show remnants of an evolutionary past and make our genetics more easier to explain in evolutionary terms because it wasn't so complex. In fact ID predicted that the junk wouldn't be junk and that God wouldn't design something with so much useless info.

Now we are finding that there is a lot more function in our DNA and some dont like this as it makes it harder to explain how evolution could evolve such a complex codes of life from a chance and random process which is basically a copying error of something that is already complex and good in the first place. Instead of having a few thousand steps to explain they now have a few million to explain how some rare beneficial mutations built something in a blind step-wise process.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Didn't a lot of scientists say that our DNA was mostly junk.

Eventhough they weren't really incorrect about that, that's not a prediction of evolution theory. However, there IS a lot of DNA that simply takes up space.

That was because having so much junk help supported their theory.

I don't see how. Maybe you would like to explain how junk dna is supposedly a necessity in context of evolution theory?

It would show remnants of an evolutionary past and make our genetics more easier to explain in evolutionary terms because it wasn't so complex.

I'ld say that a bunch of unnecessary stuff in the already enormous DNA molecule only increases the complexity...

Consider the simplistic insides of a desktop computer that ONLY has the parts it actually needs...
A motherboard with a CPU, a graphics card, a dvd rom drive, a powersupply and a harddisk. You only require a few cables to connect it all:
- Powersupply runs cables to the motherboard, graphics card, dvd drive and hard disk.
- 2 cables connect the dvd and hdd to the motherboard.
That's 6 cables in total.

Now imagine 10 additional cables in there that run between these parts, but which actually don't do anything....

The latter clearly only makes the schematics more complex for no good reason.
Thus having unecessary parts only make the whole more complex.
Which is in direct contradiction of what you just said.

In fact ID predicted that the junk would be junk and that God would design something with so much useless info. Now we are finding that there is a lot more function in our DNA some dont like this as it makes it harder to explain how evolution could evolve such complex codes of life from a chance and random process which is basically a copying error of something that is already complex and good in the first place.

Natural selection isn't random nore chance based.

 

[durangodawood]

TOE is an example of human morality in action. Its the result of our search for truth, no matter how uncomfortable it may make us at first.
This is moral excellence!

 

[Loudmouth]

Didn't a lot of scientists say that our DNA was mostly junk.

Yep, and they still say that.

Even when we started to find function they still wanted to believe it was mostly junk.

If you are talking about the ENCODE study, their definition of "biological function" included junk DNA. If a stretch of DNA was transcribed into RNA they counted that as function even though they never demonstrated that the transcribed RNA had any impact on the health or morphology of the individual. Using their definition, the trash in your kitchen trash can would have function for the simple fact that it released odor molecules into the air.

It would show remnants of an evolutionary past and make our genetics more easier to explain in evolutionary terms because it wasn't so complex.

That isn't true at all. They concluded that 90% of the human genome is junk because that is what the evidence indicates. Period.

In fact ID predicted that the junk wouldn't be junk and that God wouldn't design something with so much useless info.

Then you need to explain why 90% of the human genome doesn't show any signs of negative selection.

"A recent slew of ENCODE Consortium publications, specifically the article signed by all Consortium members, put forward the idea that more than 80% of the human genome is functional. This claim flies in the face of current estimates according to which the fraction of the genome that is evolutionarily conserved through purifying selection is under 10%. Thus, according to the ENCODE Consortium, a biological function can be maintained indefinitely without selection, which implies that at least 80 − 10 = 70% of the genome is perfectly invulnerable to deleterious mutations, either because no mutation can ever occur in these “functional” regions, or because no mutation in these regions can ever be deleterious."
http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/02/20/gbe.evt028

Now we are finding that there is a lot more function in our DNA and some dont like this as it makes it harder to explain how evolution could evolve such a complex codes of life from a chance and random process which is basically a copying error of something that is already complex and good in the first place. Instead of having a few thousand steps to explain they now have a few million to explain how some rare beneficial mutations built something in a blind step-wise process.

If by function you mean low level RNA transcription, then the answer is yes, it has function. However, that doesn't mean that the transcribed RNA has any impact on the fitness of the individual. IOW, it is still junk.

 

[Foxhole87]

I feel like if we all close our eyes and say "snowflake" at the same time, Steve might begin to understand some of the more important aspects of reality.

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't care what your link said. Just answer the question. IS it, or is it not evolution theory which says that man was created like a dumb ape like animal who needed to evolve into a man over tens of thousands of years? Also, is that what the Vatican believes as well?

Apes are quite smart, including orangutans, gorillas, and chimps. Chimps are our closest relatives, our cousins, and we evolved from an ancestor that we share with chimps. Judging by the cranium size in hominid transitional fossils, our common ancestor was probably as smart as chimps.

 

[Loudmouth]

Evolution was a proponent of the madness of the Holocaust. There's about as much morals with evolution as there are corners in perfect circles.
You've done a good job of letting evolutionists tell you something that isn't true- there is nothing closer to the truth then the moral absence within evolution.

Saying that the theory of evolution caused the Holocaust is like saying that the theory of gravity was the moral underpinning for terrorists making airplanes crash.

 

[Foxhole87]

Newtonian physics remains the most vile and immoral scientific model. Every single bloodthirsty dictator used it as the basis of their conquests and every war is fought because of it.

 

[bhsmte]

I feel like if we all close our eyes and say "snowflake" at the same time, Steve might begin to understand some of the more important aspects of reality.

Judging by the past, I doubt it.

 

[Poster0]

Judging by the cranium size in hominid transitional fossils, our common ancestor was probably as smart as chimps.

That's what I'm talking about right there, thank you. I don't believe most of those fossils are actually human ancestors, I believe TOE understanding of mans origin is built on much speculation instead of actual evidence. ITs really just fantasy. I believe that man, in beginning, was much the same as he is now. I'm not buying this ToE speculation, no matter who else accepts it. I also don't care what the Vatican believes because I disagree with them on most things anyway

 

[Loudmouth]

That's what I'm talking about right there, thank you. I don't believe most of those fossils are actually human ancestors, I believe TOE understanding of mans origin is built on much speculation instead of actual evidence.

Your rejection of the theory is based on much speculation instead of actual evidence. "I don't believe . . ." is mere speculation.

The fact of the matter is that these fossils have a mixture of basal ape and modern human features. That makes them transitional by definition. This isn't speculation. Also, we have mountains of genetic evidence that demonstrates chimps and humans share a common ancestor. I have a thread on that very subject if you are interested:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/endogenous-retroviruses-and-human-evolution-v-2.7911273/

I believe that man, in beginning, was much the same as he is now. I'm not buying this ToE speculation, not matter who else accepts it. I also don't care what the Vatican believes because I disagree with them on most things anyway

These aren't speculations:

 

[Poster0]

First of all, humans ARE apes. Just like humans are mammals.
Secondly, we share ancestors with the other great apes, and that dates back to 6 or 7 million years ago for the common ancestor with chimpansees. That ancestor was an ape, but it was not a human and not a chimpansee. Humans and chimps are "cousins" at the species level.

And how did they determine that these fossils were human ancestors? They could easily just be fossils from chimps or apes, but that doesn't mean that its a fossil of a creature who eventually evolved into man. Also how do they calculate the fossils age? They are using flawed techniques and much speculation as well. It seems unwise to blindly accept these findings as truth, because there is no real evidence, only speculation.