Evolution

[musturde]

Can anyone give me a link that explains evolution?

[Iacobus]

Hmmmm... I can find you a link or I can explian evolution in layman's terms. Whichever you prefer.

[Oik]

Here is a good one, [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05654a.htm"] catholics and evolution[/url]. And another, [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05655a.htm"]evolution.[/url]

by the way, it's carp! (Evolution, that is) I have a better theory, how about all those different bones what were found are actually just that, different bones. It seems more logical to me that species are created as they are with potential to adapt. I find it silly that things change themselves through randomly selected mutations (by the way a mutation is a genetic defect, so according to survival of the fittests, defects should decline a species, not advance it.).

Read, just my opinion.

[Iacobus]

[quote name='Oik' date='Aug 26 2004, 09:59 PM'] by the way, it's carp! (Evolution, that is) I have a better theory, how about all those different bones what were found are actually just that, different bones. It seems more logical to me that species are created as they are with potential to adapt. I find it silly that things change themselves through randomly selected mutations (by the way a mutation is a genetic defect, so according to survival of the fittests, defects should decline a species, not advance it.).

Read, just my opinion. [/quote]
That was what I try to correct. You are kinda wrong and kinda right. May I explain what Evolution, neither thesitic or atheistic, is?

Darwin said that speices adpat to their enviroments [i]retroactivly.[/i] And it makes sense. We have 10 of the same specis of instect. I am going to spray them with a pesticde. About 10% of any given population is somewhat restience to a chemical. So we kill all but 1 of those instects. Now assuming that somehow this insect (though isolated in our "lab") could reproudce. The abilty to surive would be passed onto its off spring. Therefore, the offspring would be more "fit" to the enviroment of its parents. The only reason of this being so would be the fact that the other 90% that were not fit died off and were unable to reproudce.

An other example. We have two types of moth. One is black and one is white. We are in industial England and the trees and ground are covered in soot over one summer. Prior to this summer the Black and White Moths were of equal population. Now that everything is black the white moths are easier to see. Therefore, they are more likly be be eaten by a predotitor than the black moth who blends in would be. Thus the next generation of moths would have more black moths, due to the inabilty of the white moths to live long enough to reproudce. When the soot recedes the white moth and black moth return to normal population levels because one is not preyed on more than the other.

As to your mention of mutations. I mutation is not as you define a genetic defect. A mutation is a genetic change. My have thick brown hair is a mutation. The "prefect" genetic code might not be brown and thick. Therefore, it is a mutation. A mutation is, moreover, not by defenation a bad thing. I may recive a mutation grants me better night vision than my comption. Thus, at nite I am more able to catch and feed due to this benficatal mutation.

And evolution is a law. The "Law of Evolution" is basicly, "Over time species adapt to their enviroments."

[Phazzan]

I believe in a form of evolution, not necessarily Darwinism. Theistic evolution, whatever they call it.

[Oik]

[quote]Darwin said that speices adpat to their enviroments retroactivly. [/quote]
This only porves that some species die and other don't.

[quote]An other example. We have two types of moth.[/quote]
Save this example for the easily duped. This Moth example only provides circumstantial evidence for a situation. Suppose I hear a gun shot and then run out side. I see my neighbor holding a gun. So what. It doesn't prove that he fired his gun or that the shot I heard even has anything to do with my neighbor. With the moths, same thing. So what if they moths are easy to see. All that proves is that we are in Industrial England and that the white moths are landing on soot.

[quote]As to your mention of mutations. I mutation is not as you define a genetic defect. A mutation is a genetic change.[/quote]
If you buy into evolutionary terminology.
[quote]The "prefect" genetic code might not be brown and thick.[/quote]
Then why not logically assume that in the beginning of genetics, that God created cells to contain the capacity to harbor all forms of genetic variations that we see in the species today, but some being more prevelant that other, ensuring that they rarely or never show up. This accounts for "mutations". Something unknown is not something previously unexisting.
[quote]And evolution is a law. The "Law of Evolution" is basicly, "Over time species adapt to their enviroments." [/quote]
Evolution is a theory and it has serious gaps. Also, adaption is an idea that we assume as factual because we don't understand where or why speices "change."

I don't believe species change, they are created with the potiential to become what they already are. Men will not grow wings because we do not have the genetic potiential to do so. Mutations are defects. Genetic variations are really the emergence of the capacity (or function) that a species already has.

[Oik]

BTW, Iacobus, I do love you. I am not mad or angry or trying to be mean. I really like to talk about evolution. I am [b]NOT[/b] putting you down.

[Phazzan]

Oik, what are your credentials on the matter at hand? Year 10 Biology? Not good enough pal.

[Oik]

Hi, what, thanks, God Bless.

Ps waiting for [i]Iacobus[/i] to reply, .

[Iacobus]

[quote name='Oik' date='Aug 26 2004, 10:48 PM'] BTW, Iacobus, I do love you. I am not mad or angry or trying to be mean. I really like to talk about evolution. I am [b]NOT[/b] putting you down. [/quote]
Sorry I was at school.

My creds, for Phazzan, are Bio 103 and Lab 104, Bio 106 and Lab 107 and High School bio, a meeting with my preist, and an hour long class about evolution which I gave to my YG (par request of the DRE).

I shall now reply to your post, Oik.

[i]This only porves that some species die and other don't.[/i]

Which in turn proves Natural Selection. Simply put there is a limited amout of food/space/etc and the species more adpat to use that finite rescourse are more likly to live. The organisms who live are more likly to reproduce. The organisms that reproduce are more likly to have their genes carried on.

If organisms die from not being able to compete for the finite matter than evoluation is supported.

[i]Save this example for the easily duped. This Moth example only provides circumstantial evidence for a situation. Suppose I hear a gun shot and then run out side. I see my neighbor holding a gun. So what. It doesn't prove that he fired his gun or that the shot I heard even has anything to do with my neighbor. With the moths, same thing. So what if they moths are easy to see. All that proves is that we are in Industrial England and that the white moths are landing on soot.[/i]

The moths were of the same specis just different colors. Both were landing on the soot and the black ones blended in more. Due to the increase ease of preying on the white moths against the black backgroud less where present in the next generation. Why? Because they didn't live to reproudce, they were eaten by the birds and other predators. This lends [i]support[/i] to Theory of Evolution by Means of Natural Selcetion.

But does not, alone and if and of itself prove the theory. The theory is supported by many case studies, like this. I cite the moth example due to the simplicaty of the case. The other cases would be like, your neighbor has gun powder on his hands, the gun is smoking, and there are traces of nitrats (sp? I think that is what it leaves) on his hands.

[i]If you buy into evolutionary terminology.[/i]

The American Heritage ® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition defines "mutation" as...

[quote]1. The act or process of being altered or changed.

2. An alteration or change, as in nature, form, or quality.

3. [b]Genetics[/b] a. A change of the DNA sequence within a gene or chromosome of an organism resulting in the creation of a new character or trait not found in the parental type. b. The process by which such a change occurs in a chromosome, either through an alteration in the nucleotide sequence of the DNA coding for a gene or through a change in the physical arrangement of a chromosome. c. A mutant.[/quote]

Moreover the word has its root in the Latin infinitive [i]mutare[/i] which means "to change." A mutation does not have to negativly affect the organism.

[i]Then why not logically assume that in the beginning of genetics, that God created cells to contain the capacity to harbor all forms of genetic variations that we see in the species today, but some being more prevelant that other, ensuring that they rarely or never show up. This accounts for "mutations". Something unknown is not something previously unexisting.[/i]

Variations, hmmm....

[quote]Biology a. Marked difference or deviation from the normal or recognized form, function, or structure. b. An organism or plant exhibiting such difference or deviation. [/quote]

Couldn't we say that they are mutations of one and other? You are using another word for the same thing. If they are of different vartities than they are mutations of one and other. Their gentic code is simlar but mutated. Thereby causing the creation of varations.

[i]Evolution is a theory and it has serious gaps. Also, adaption is an idea that we assume as factual because we don't understand where or why speices "change."[/i]

I am going to do some AP vocab here.

Law: A short statement or math expression that states something.

I.e. Law of Gravity: Objects are drawn to the object with the larger mass.

Theory: A long explanation of a Law stating why it happens that is supported by a board range of facts.

I.e. Theory of Gravity.

We know things change over time. Therefore Evolution could be called a law. Evolution by means of natural Selection is a theory. It trys to explain why this happens and how.

We understand where and why. They change wherever they exisit. And why? To be better suited to the enviroment. Granted the bird doesn't wake up and say "If my beak were longer and thinner I could get more insects out of the tree bark." But those with the long and thin beaks can. Those with the larger beaks are unable to access as much food and are more likly to die and not be able to reporucde in the next generation. There by the thin and long beak becomes more common.

[i]I don't believe species change, they are created with the potiential to become what they already are. Men will not grow wings because we do not have the genetic potiential to do so. Mutations are defects. Genetic variations are really the emergence of the capacity (or function) that a species already has.[/i]

You just showed your misunderstanding of evolution.

[i]Men will not grow wings because we do not have the genetic potiential to do so.[/i]

Evolution would require man to have wings first or suffer from a mutation. A mutation of that exterem is unlikly. But a mutation of mankind to have more hair (like that of an ape) is more possible due to the simlar code types.

If man had wings and man feeded on something in the air those with wings would be more fit to surive in the eviroment. Thus they would be more likly to reproudce and be more present in the next generation.

[Aloysius]

didn't they find bones that pre-date lucy that are very similar to modern man?

[Paladin D]

I really don't have any scientific position except that [b]God created everything[/b], [b]we're made in His image[/b], and that [b]we're seperate from animals[/b]. I've read some very convincing arguments on the Creationism spectrum when it comes to the geological collum (if thats how it's spelled).

[Ash Wednesday]

I've never been offended by evolution or gotten up in arms about it like some people do. I haven't been so inclined to take creation totally in the literal Genesis form. But I'm open to what creation science might have to say about it.

The point where I do have a bone to pick is where the Fall, or original sin would have come in. Darwinian evolution isn't very clear on this.

Unless the science I was taught in school has changed, evolution was a theory, not a scientific law. We have rough sketches of how the earth and life came about, but that's all they are. Guesses. God only knows.

*off to eat a and scratch my armpits*

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Try this:
[url="http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0042.html"]http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/...nce/sc0042.html[/url]

[Iacobus]

[quote name='Ash Wednesday' date='Aug 27 2004, 05:15 PM'] I've never been offended by evolution or gotten up in arms about it like some people do. I haven't been so inclined to take creation totally in the literal Genesis form. But I'm open to what creation science might have to say about it.

The point where I do have a bone to pick is where the Fall, or original sin would have come in. Darwinian evolution isn't very clear on this.

Unless the science I was taught in school has changed, evolution was a theory, not a scientific law. We have rough sketches of how the earth and life came about, but that's all they are. Guesses. God only knows.

*off to eat a and scratch my armpits* [/quote]
The theory of evoluation can never became a law. THeorys don't equal laws. But a Law of E (Which probly exists or should that merely states orgs change over time) isn't a theory.

When I did my class for Rel Ed, my friend Ed and I went nuts. About 20 minutes before class we were thinking about inculding the JPII's "Evolution is more than a hypothesis" statment. I rember us both crying out "WHY CAN'T THE CHURCH JUST SAY SOMETHING DEFINTE ABOUT E!!!" They have basicly said, "Think whatever you want, we don't know and the Bible isn't a textbook BUT never forget who did it. God." And that was our whole premise (beside debunking YEC and OEC).