Posted on 03/14/2006 10:49:13 AM PST by LouAvul
But if natural selection or mutation can't produce a change within the species - and they can't - there can be no evolution.
"You're absolutely right. I've wasted considerable time on this thread trying to get a straight answer from these people.
They repeatedly throw in minor adaptations as their conclusive proof that man descended from apes.
Their intellectual dishonesty is disgusting.
Now I know why I never respond to these threads."
I know what you mean. A couple of people are so intellectually dishonest that I don't even waste my time reading their posts.
"But if natural selection or mutation can't produce a change within the species - and they can't - there can be no evolution."
Since they can, evolution is safe.
Nor would it matter. One can get any amount of diversity even in cases where no single event speciation takes place. One can get from New York to Chicago without taking more than a single step at a time; saltations unnecessary.
Congratulations. You've just rejected micro-evolution. That puts you out on a limb even amongst the most strident evo-rejectors.
Define species.
Assuming you don't want the meaning from the dictionary, as I'm sure you have a dictionary, species is different from breed. There are many breeds of cats, for instance, but they are the same species.
So do you agree or disagree with some of your fellow creationists who recognize chimpanzees and human beings as being the same species?
"So do you agree or disagree with some of your fellow creationists who recognize chimpanzees and human beings as being the same species?"
I disagree.
It looks like this very famous Christian agrees with me:
“Further, he (the Pope) seems to be cautioning those who have been claiming Church endorsement of the full-bodied, design-defeating version of Darwin's theory of evolution, which, after all, is often little more than philosophical materialism applied to science,” added Chapman.
Chapman noted that in his very first homily as Pope, Benedict XVI had rebuked the idea that human beings are mere products of evolution, and that, like his predecessor, John Paul II, the new Pope has a long record of opposition to scientific materialism.
excerpt from: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3015&program=News&callingPage=discoMainPage
What is the difference between species and subspecies?
Let me speak first to the position of the last Pope, Pope John Paul II.
In 1996, Pope John Paul II published a "message" where he wrote,
"In his Encyclical Humani generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points (cf. AAS 42 [1950], pp. 575-576).
Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical, fresh knowledge has led to the recognition that evolution is more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favour of this theory."
It's clear that Pope John Paul II does not reject evolutionary biology.
It's good that we are in agreement that human beings and chimps are not the same species, since they're not. Since chimps have an extra pair of chromosomes, it's extremely unlikely that we could reproduce.
I'm not sure if you looked at my links from the earlier post. I know creationists don't like to talk about plants (I don't why), but there were examples in there of plant mutations that made it impossible for these plant groups to reproduce with the precursor line, but still remain viable among themselves. This is usually how new species begin to form.
You had asked about subspecies. The term is usually used for describing a geographic segment of a species as a way to talk about their characteristics specific to their environment or behavior. However, they are still viable within their species. A non-politically correct usage in humans would be to describe races of men as subspecies, but that's rarely ever done because of historical situations related to black slavery.
There are biologists who don't like the concept of subspecies and they continue to argue against it's use.
I have the highest respect for those who believe in both evo and God, even though I disagree with evo.
Thanks for the link about John Paul II. I'll check it out more thoroughly after this post.
However, it seems that Pope Benedict XVI has a different position, perhaps because there is new evidence.
For instance, I was listening to the radio last night and according to the commentator, in Darwin's day, they thought that we only had one cell, and based on this theory, convinced other scientists of evo.
But now, with technological advances, biologists have discovered that we have trillions of cells.
Next point, it seems to me that a plant is so different from a human or animal, that it can't be compared. To my mind, it's apples and oranges.
Last but not least, are you "agnostic" about evolution, or have you pretty much made up your mind (unless new evidence is discovered).
It is a pleasure "talking" with you, as you are honest and very pleasant.
You will probably find this thread interesting, with both sides of evo, giving their interpretation of our new Pope's statement:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/1407576/posts?page=1
Thank you. You are honest and pleasant as well and I enjoyed our discussion.
I'm sometimes bent out of shape by these discussions because I'm a Christian who works in biotechnology, although my degree is in physics. I'm routinely accused of atheism or some other such thing because I can see that evolutionary biology has an enormous weight of evidence behind it that creationists and ID'ers aren't aware of, or discount out of hand.
If a scientific theory is going to replace evolution, it's got a lot of work to do and I don't see anyone doing it. My personal point of view is that God created the universe and all of us in it. And He created the processes that we learn as we fulfill the destiny he has planned for us. Evolution is just one of them.
I'm not completely up on the history of cell biology but modern theories of cells date to around Darwin's time or just before. He would've had the latest information that large organisms were made up of billions to trillions of cells. I think the Popes tend to rely on their scientific advisors to understand these issues, although I know they'll request audiences with outside scientists periodically to get the latest word on developments.
The reason that plants are good subjects for study is that they reproduce rapidly, are easy to care for in human habitats and they're large enough to easily manipulate. It makes it easier to look at a lot of generations in a short period of time. Also plants are a lot weirder than terrestrial animals so there's more to see. Now if we could get some of the samller sea critters to breed in labs we could work with some weird animals.
And thanks for the link.
I agree with the Pope that evolution is not casual or meaningless. (Only the atheists think that.)
But that doesn't mean we can't examine and understand the process.
Hey Franky, do you still believe there is no explanation for the dipole moment of water?
I love talking with sincere people, whether they agree with me or not. I like to know how people arrive at their conclusions.
What got me to first delve into the fact that there has been no proof that one species can become an entirely different species is when I read it in a book by Judge Bork (the judge who was borked :) ).
Judge Bork is not someone who is devoting his life to the ID theory, but wrote a book(s) on a number of things covering culture, the Constitution, etc. He only devoted one or two pages to his antievo view out of his entire book, hardly a person who is devoting his life to ID, so probably at one time quite open-minded about the evo theory.
As I said in previous post while listening on the radio: "according to the commentator, in Darwin's day, they thought that we only had one cell, and based on this theory, convinced other scientists of evo.
But now, with technological advances, biologists have discovered that we have trillions of cells."
So I was trying to search for a link where some biologists say that we have trillions of cells and could not find it. By any chance, can you suggest a website that I could search for this information? I know some will say it's true, and some will say it's bogus, I just want to see what these biologists have to say about it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.