Creationists dealt a blow

[Trumble]

now, about the statement from the pope, I would like to ask again.. "Could somone tell me which are the theories of evolution that grant humanity the special and dignified status he enjoys according to all world religions"

I already have, twice. The Catholic Church takes precisely such a view.

How many "theories of evolution" exist , that the Church is denying some and accepting others...

You need to be very careful here not to mix scientific theories with philosophical and theological ones any more than is necessary (although to some extent it possibly is). I've been banging on about materialism/reductionism and dualism, and it seems a little explanation may be in order. Generally, materialists take the sort of view you have been suggesting about man being "just an animal". They do not believe in a mind or soul as being distinct from the brain (and electro-chemical activity within it), and their aim is to "reduce" the first to terms fully describable by the latter.

Dualists, however, disagree. They believe the mind or soul completely different from the material body that hosts it, and that the two can be seperated - usually after bodily death. That is much the same position as the Church still holds. Many dualists believe that things are that way because the possession of an immortal soul is the thing that seperates man from the animals; it is the creation and gift of God.

I would also like to know how a buddhist like member "trumble" can accept this theory, when it clearly leaves no room for soul, and meditation and truth are reduced to abstract concepts of the human mind...

Firstly, as I have explained, it DOES leave room for a "soul" if you want one. The Buddhist take on that is actually rather more complicated than a brief look at concepts like re-incarnation may suggest (personally I do not believe in the "soul", just a continuous and inevitable sequence of causes and effects).

Secondly, I do not believe there was a creator God, at least as monotheists would understand that phrase.

Thirdly I don't have any problem with 'truth' being an abstract truth of the human mind, or at least the truths my mind can comfortably handle intellectually. For anything beyond that - 'ultimate truths' if you like - the general Buddhist belief would be that they can only be directly experienced. Meditation is a way of attempting to do that, and accepting evolutionary theory - at least until something better comes along - doesn't stop anybody from meditating!

Or, in short, there is no real contradiction between accepting evolutionary theory, and Buddhism, that I am aware of.

 

[jello]

to the Muslims,hello to the non-Muslims

Still the question about the "theories of evolution" that do not contradict the teaching of the revealed religions is in order. Is it too much to ask for a listing of the "different theories of evolution" as stated by Evolutionist scientists so that we can separate the "acceptable" from the "unacceptable" ones, like the statement of the Church is making us infer? (About Islam I hope the matter is clear that we totally reject outright any reference to our coming from other non-human life forms...)

(I personally think the Catholic Church is not calling evolution an outright lie because many of its members are deeply secularist in outlook and only have a shell of catholicism left in them. Leaving it in vague terms and giving contradictory statements makes everyone, the hardliners and the secularists fall under the same Church. I do not know whether this will last for too long, though).

 

[root]

Still the question about the "theories of evolution" that do not contradict the teaching of the revealed religions is in order.

But truly, only one is a scientific theory since philosophical & Theological are not compatible with the scientific theory? Thus the theory of evolution is defined as:

Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

 

[Trumble]

to the Muslims,hello to the non-Muslims

Still the question about the "theories of evolution" that do not contradict the teaching of the revealed religions is in order. Is it too much to ask for a listing of the "different theories of evolution" as stated by Evolutionist scientists so that we can separate the "acceptable" from the "unacceptable" ones, like the statement of the Church is making us infer? (About Islam I hope the matter is clear that we totally reject outright any reference to our coming from other non-human life forms...)

(I personally think the Catholic Church is not calling evolution an outright lie because many of its members are deeply secularist in outlook and only have a shell of catholicism left in them. Leaving it in vague terms and giving contradictory statements makes everyone, the hardliners and the secularists fall under the same Church. I do not know whether this will last for too long, though).

The science is pretty much variations on the same theory, so I can't give you a list of different and competing scientific theories, because there aren't any. Evolution is the accepted theory, and will remain so until a better (scientific) one comes along, if it ever does.

As I said before, the differences between different "theories" are primarily philosophical and theological, not scientific. I have already explained the differences.

They simply are not giving out "contradictory statements" in "vague terms". It just isn't the simple "evolution or God" argument you make it out to be. There is no necessary contradiction between the two. They are not calling it an "outright lie" because the Church itself (with a surprisingly long and distinguished scientific history) doesn't think it is.

 

[jello]

to the muslims, hello to the non-muslims,

So there is only one theory of evolution, as I had suspected. The rest is philosophical changes to try to make it look as if there were "different theories" which strikes me as odd to say the very least.

I yet have to see how many scientists actually believe that man was created from God rather than only materialistic. Even from this thread itself, we have three Atheist supporters of evolution theory, and one whose concept of "God" is :I do not believe there was a creator God, at least as monotheists would understand that phrase.

At least as far as Islam is concerned, the question is either that Allah created man vs. Evolution created man (i.e. Allah did not create man through evolution due to the evidence of the religious texts). As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, I still see the so-so attitude as is evidenced by them talking about the different "theories of evolution" as if from a scientic viewpoint.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings Jello,

Evolution by natural selection is one theory, but there are other theoretical components within or around it, which amount to different interpretations of the basic theory or specific aspects of it, such as phyletic gradualism, punctuated equilibrium and quantum evolution.

Why don't you actually learn about evolution before getting involved in a discussion about it? That might stop you from getting so confused all the time.

Peace

 

[jello]

to the Muslims, hello to the non-muslims,

Could I get a definition of these three terms by those supporting th eevolution tehiry. (Of course I could go to some site and get their meanings, but it is better if we work with the definitions given by Evolution supporters in this thread).

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Could I get a definition of these three terms by those supporting th eevolution tehiry. (Of course I could go to some site and get their meanings, but it is better if we work with the definitions given by Evolution supporters in this thread).

Why not look at a site? That's only what I'm going to link you to anyway! This is part of what I said earlier about educating yourself about evolution. Don't automatically trust anything I or someone else might tell you - find it out for yourself!

Here are the terms you've asked about:

Phyletic Gradualism

Punctuated Equilibrium

Quantum Evolution

Peace

 

[root]

Evolution = change in allele frequency in a population over time

Natural selection = differential propagation of genotypes (due to differences in ability to survive, resist disease, find mates, etc)

Sexual selection = differential success in acquiring fertilizations between genotypes (a sub-set of natural selection)

Genetic drift = the effects of random chance on evolution, mostly seen in small populations and on genes with low frequency

Founder effect / genetic bottleneck = the isolation of a small random or nearly-random sub-set of a population, resulting in alterations in gene frequency due to chance.

The modern technical definition of evolution is "change in allele frequency in a population over time". In layman's terms, it defines evolution as genetic change in a population.

There are several consequences of this definition. One is that non-selective forces that affect gene frequency (often strongly) have been incorporated into evolution. This is fitting, since these forces have actually had great impact.

One is genetic drift, which is just the effects of random chance in a population. If you have two alleles, equally represented, but no selection acting on them, eventually one will vanish, just by chance, since animals die for non-selective reasons.

Another is the founder effect, aka genetic bottleneck, in which a small sample of a population survives a disaster or colonizes a new location. Because this sample is small, chances are that not all alleles will be represented and that the ratio will change. Think of it like having a bowl of red, yellow and blue marbles, where red and yellow are 48% each and blue is 4%. If you take a sample of 9, red and yellow probably won't be equal anymore, and you might lose blue entirely.

Then of course there's natural selection, the one we're all familiar with. However, it should be noted that it isn't progress towards perfection or even improvement in an absolute sense, but just adaptation to local conditions and selective pressures (environment, pathogens, parasites, etc). It can also prevent evolution. If you have a population with a bell-curve distribution of a trait, and the extremes are selected against, the mean value will never change.

There's also sexual selection, the competition for mates and fertilizations, which can actually run counter to natural selection.

 

[HeiGou]

I do not need to study evolution to know it is false.

May I ask you which part of Evolutionary Theory you think is false? Do you think that populations do not change over time? That some individuals are not more successful than others?

Allah the AllMighty has already told me that we do not come from some animal or single cell, this is all I need to know.

God told you personally? That sounds vaguely blasphemous in Islam. Is that your claim? Or did He tell you in the Quran? May I ask where and how He told you that Evolution was false?

Since the Evolution Worshippers do not generally accept God in any form or way or try to make excuses to fool the unwary about how Evolution and God may go hand-in-hand,that is their problem to answer on Judgemnet Day.

How can anyone worship Evolution?

Evoltutionits worship their own whims and the so called scientific method, a method that leads nowhere but Hellfire, as Allah has told us about those who take their whims and desires as their gods. Intersting that He (SWT) says that people like root and cz and other atheists are less than cattle, don't you think???

Well no. You would expect that. No Religious Authority, much less the Highest One, is going to tell anyone atheists are good people and to be admired.

Scientists should not worship, much less follow, their own whims. They need to follow the evidence. Pre-judgement makes for bad results and useless science.

Not following rituals and traditions is a ritual in and of itself. The desire to reduce everything to science and experimentation is a religion with its own set of morals and values, even if it only means carrying out tests and making silly hypothesis like evolution.

There is no reason to think that not follow a ritual is a ritual itself unless the person doing it thinks it is. And indeed that second bit sounds sensible. Why shouldn't we reduce everything to its basics and test it? Do you only want blind belief?

Of course, the arrogants Evolution worshippers will not accept this, will keep on saying that humans are not debased by talk of evolution, andthat it does not contardict divine belief,but everything is clear cut for the true believer.

I do, as it happens, think that humans are debased by Evolution. Freud would agree with me I think. But part of growing up is to accept that we are not as important to the rest of the world as we are to our Mothers, and also that we are not as important to the Rest of the Universe either. It is sad but it is true. That that truth is what is important. I also agree it can contradict a certain type of Divine belief, but not that it contradicts all possible forms of Divine belief.

 

[جوري]

Well one thing is that modern medical science has taken the pressure off the human race so in many ways we are getting "worse". It is a good thing to have a big head for instance, and humans already have disproportionately large heads. Giving birth is much harder for humans than almost any other species because babies' heads just don't fit that well. In the past a lot of mothers and babies would have died keeping head size down. They do not any more because the mothers all have medical intervention. So expect human heads to get a bit bigger.

Another thing is Tay-Sacks disease which strikes down otherwise normal children between the ages of two and five. This affects mainly Jews of Eastern European origin. A Rabbi called Josef Ekstein started an organisation called Dor Yeshorim after losing four children to Tay-Sacks. It tests for the genes for Tay-Sacks and advises some marriages to go ahead and some not to. This has cut the number of cases in the Orthodox Jewish community down to lower levels than the mainstream American population. But the down side is that it is spreading the genes for Tay-Sacks into the wider community and so making more people carry the gene. Evolution is action.

please bring some evidence from an esteemed journal as to your first claim
you can start with http://uptodate.com/
I can't believe the stuff you post here with such authority.. lol

also --"Tay-Sachs" disease is an autosomal recessive disease ( doesn't strike normal children) that is an oxymoron If I ever saw one in the making -- you need a copy of the defective gene from each parent for a child to be manifest with the disease! not unlike the process in cystic fibrosis-- and with a carrier rate is 1 in 25 in Ashkenazi Jewish population it is obviously more prevalent in them---Sickle cell disease affects blacks almost exclusively affecting 10% of their population---glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase affects mostly Mediterranean-- cystic fibrosis affects one in 3200 Whites....takayasu arteritis is most prevalent in Asians--Buerger's Disease affects mostly Jews from middle eastern origin... Some diseases are prevalent in certain regions and certain areas more than others... but it doesn't mean that others in the population at large aren't carriers or can't be affected by it if by mere chance they should meet with another unfortunate soul who is also a carrier of the defective gene.. So I am not sure what the point you are trying to make here? or does it make you feel proud to throw terms at people whose pathophysiology-- and I hazard state even spelling you can't muster?!

peace!

 

[root]

looks like some here like to take debates well off topic..........

 

[ranma1/2]

looks like some here like to take debates well off topic..........

Yes i have discovered that as well.

 

[Woodrow]

Must be the result of too many evolutionists on the thread. At this rate the off spring of this thread will soon have no resemblance to a thread and will become a new form of forum interaction. Possibly as some type of pattern recognition instead of typed words.

The big problem is there does not appear to be any general consensus as to what evolution is. Perhaps if an agreement can be made about that, then a valid debate can be made as to how and why it occurs.

Misunderstood debates only lead to further misunderstanding.

 

[MustafaMc]

My opinion on evolution is that it is purely a belief system based on the book by Charles Darwin, On the Origin of the Species , to explain away the existence of the Creator, the One God - Allah. In stark contrast, creationism is also a belief system based on the Bible, the Holy Quran and other religous texts to point to the very existence of the Creator and to establish our relationship with Him. Is it any more wonderous as to why one would work so hard to disprove something as to why others try to prove it?

You may say that creationism is unscientifically simplistic and that those things that can't be logically explained are attributed to a man-made concept of God. My premise is that atheists start with the basic belief that there is no God and that they look for evidence to disprove His existence.

As a cotton breeder/geneticist working to develop genetically engineered cotton varieties, I have some understanding of genetical and biological principles. My limited understanding of these principles dictates that I believe in a Creator. My amazement at the miracle of life makes it impossible for me to believe that life even began by mere chance at the most basic single cell level, much less that "evolution" explains how this supposed primal single cell "evolved" into the highest life form, humankind, by random chance mutations and by natural selection without a Higher Power guiding the process. With recent advances in knowledge of biology and genetics, man still cannot recreate under the most ideal conditions even a single celled organism from elemental components (carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, etc.)

For me, it makes no difference whether Allah literally fashioned the first man, Adam, from clay and breathed life into him, or whether this was a symbolic parable that Allah used to explain a more complicated process that He manipulated and continues to guide. I just can't understand how evolution without a guiding Higher Power can explain the origin of species through random genetic mutations and survival of the fittest. Fossil records of so-called bridging species means absolutely nothing regarding the existence of God. I believe in God and atheists disbelieve in Him and neither can convicingly scientifically "prove" his point to the other because evolution and creation are beliefs that have no proof either way.

 

[DAWUD_adnan]

its the THEORY of evolution not FACT....... ow,and evolutionism is racist ...lol

 

[Woodrow]

The difficulty I see is that non-biologists view evolution as a religious belief that explains creation.

I am very much a creationist. However, My past work involved a good deal of biology. to me evolution is simply the statement that the offspring will have a different genetic make up then the parents. Both Great Danes and Chihuahuas are dogs. Both come from the same ancestors and both are still dogs. But a chihua looks more like a mouse and a Great Dane looks more like a horse. In a biological concept that is what evolution is. It is not a theory, it is a fact, offspring are going to often look different than the parents.

What seems to get confused and mistaken for evolution are the theories on how evolution occurs. the theories of evolution have nothing to do about the existance of evolution, they are theories as to how the changes occur. Creationism is just as much a valid "Theory of Evolution as is the theory of natural selection.

As A Creationist I believe that the evolution we see is the result of Divine Planning. My theory of how evolution occurs is that it is the handiwork and planning of Allah(swt)

 

[MustafaMc]

...to me evolution is simply the statement that the offspring will have a different genetic make up then the parents. Both Great Danes and Chihuahuas are dogs. Both come from the same ancestors and both are still dogs. But a chihua looks more like a mouse and a Great Dane looks more like a horse.

No, I respectfully disagree. What you just described is a basic genetic principle of inheritance not evolution. Evolution according to Wikipedia is defined as "...Over time, this process can result in varied adaptations to environmental conditions. As differences in and between populations accumulate, new species may evolve. All known species are descended from a single ancestral gene pool through this process of gradual divergence..."

In a biological concept that is what evolution is. It is not a theory, it is a fact, offspring are going to often look different than the parents.

Yes, offspring looking like their parents is a fact, but it is not a "fact" supporting evolution with random undirected mutations and natural selection to develop into a new species that is sexually incompatible with the first. Evolution without "Intelligent Design" is not a fact - it is a theory that some people believe in.

 

[AB517]

lol this argument (question) is funny.

When you ask about creation, which story do you want? Navaho have a great one, Christians aint to bad either (I am Christian); in fact I have not read one that I didn’t enjoy. They are all, how ever, at the present time, are un-testable. The physical laws that God created are testable. No scientist says that the present theory is any more than a theory. It is (as a matter of fact) the only one that is testable. Scientist love people to question and requestion. The beauty of scientist is that (we believing ones) feel that God wants us to keep growing, so no book has the total answer, how can it. We also feel that God would sing out in joy, and all the angles would trumpet if man became enlightened enough to understand how Allah did it, or at least how our meagerness’ could understand it.

The only question is “Do you believe in a higher power” The Bible, Koran, and all other great books try to show us how to love, respect, and honor each other. Math books do math, these mathematicians are also inspirited. Cook books do cooking. The rock record is incomplete; it does not prove or disprove anything.

2+2=4 Allah be praised.

AB

 

[Keltoi]

I'm a believer in evolution, and it isn't a threat to my religion. Anyone who has spent time observing nature understands that animals adapt to their environment. In snowy mountains you will see white rabbits. Why? Because the white rabbits have an advantage over brown rabbits in snow. Perhaps that is more an example of natural selection, but it is still part of the overall process.

This is my personal belief, but God gave man the ability reason and think. Scientists seek understanding of the Earth and natural processess. These natural processes were set in place by God. I know not all scientists will agree with that, but that isn't really the point. I believe in God, I believe that God created the Earth and all the complicated yet important processes that are involved. Scientists seeking knowledge on the reason and order of these processes doesn't threaten my faith.