Vatican says Darwain was right...
- Thread starter Lugnut
- Start date
Tilted
..
I didn't read the whole thing, so I'm not sure exactly what they are acknowledging or conceding. But, they eventually conceded that the Earth wasn't the center of the Universe, also. You reach a point, where the weight of reason forces even the most stubborn, most vested, most ardent denier to succumb, or else lose whatever semblance of credibility they have left.
I have yet to meet anyone who denied the inherent reality of any of the individual posits that are required by the logic chain which necessarily proves the existence of what we often refer to as the evolutionary process. Sometimes they still deny that those posits add up to what they add up to, but I've never had someone deny the foundational posits. That's kind of like acknowledging that 2+2=4, and that 4+4=8, yet denying that 2+2+2+2=8.
The only question that can reasonably carry a legitimate debate is - what magic, what physical phenomena, what dynamics, what processes could have created the first instance or what we would later recognize as life?
I have yet to meet anyone who denied the inherent reality of any of the individual posits that are required by the logic chain which necessarily proves the existence of what we often refer to as the evolutionary process. Sometimes they still deny that those posits add up to what they add up to, but I've never had someone deny the foundational posits. That's kind of like acknowledging that 2+2=4, and that 4+4=8, yet denying that 2+2+2+2=8.
The only question that can reasonably carry a legitimate debate is - what magic, what physical phenomena, what dynamics, what processes could have created the first instance or what we would later recognize as life?
brendar buhl
Doesn't seem Christian
As far as Evolution is concered I don't think it's quite that cut and dry. It's more like saying n + n = 4 so n + m = a potato.
As for religion, Christians are always grappling with what scripture is figurative and what scripture is literal. Science helps us sort through these things.
As for religion, Christians are always grappling with what scripture is figurative and what scripture is literal. Science helps us sort through these things.
kwillia
n/a
Wasn't he the tall skinny dude with glasses on "What's Happening?"
Why yes!
This_person
Well-Known Member
From what I read, it sounds like they "acknowledged" that most any given species changes over time.
Lugnut
I'm Rick James #####!
Tilted
..
If you don't think that the logic chain is clear, then which link in the logic chain do you disagree with? Or, I guess, you may believe that the conclusion of the chain is somehow logically faulty.
1. Living things possess traits which differ somewhat between various living things.
2. Some living things have the ability to reproduce.
3. In the process by which some living things reproduce, the specific traits that they possess are replicated in their offspring with a greater frequency than those traits which they don't possess.
4. Some living things do not attain the ability to reproduce for some period of time after their creation.
5. For whatever reason, the presence or absence of some of the aforementioned traits makes it more or less likely that a particular living thing will survive for:
(a) a specified period of time, and/or
(b) a period of time sufficient for them to attain the ability to reproduce, and/or
(c) a significant period of time after they attain the ability to reproduce.
6. Whether or not a living thing survives long enough to attain the ability to reproduce, and how long they survive after attaining the ability to reproduce, has a significant effect on the likelihood that they do reproduce and how likely it is that they reproduce a specified number of times.7. Whether or not a living thing reproduces, and how often they do so, has an effect on the likelihood that their traits are replicated in their offspring.
8. For whatever reason, some offspring acquire a trait (or traits) which was not present in any of the living things whose reproduction created them; and, sometimes this trait (or traits) is not present in any other living thing.
Conclusions:
For whatever reason it is that causes (5) to be true, some traits will be found more or less frequently in living things, as a function of time.
Additionally, for whatever reason it is that causes (8) to be true, some new traits, which were not present in living things before, can become present in living things.
Those phenomena are generally referred to as Evolution, though their description as such is often accompanied by more specificity. Over vasts periods of time they possess the inherent ability to make profound changes in the structure and variety of living things, or the ability to make very little change in the structure and variety of living things. It depends largely on the issues that affect (5) and (8), and a certain basis on which to evaluate those issues is required to assess the potential profoundness of the changes.
Most scientists believe that we have a significant amount of evidence, and thus they conclude, that this process has had a profound effect on what life exists on Earth today, and how it developed as such. I happen to agree with that conclusion. But, regardless of whether or not someone accepts the modern scientific consensus in regard to the degree to which the Evolutionary process has shaped the nature of life on Earth - the reality that such a process exists to some degree or another is logically inescapable, unless you disbelieve one of those original posits. I've never had first hand knowledge of anyone who did.
The point of is simple. If I know that a person has exactly 4 apples. And, I know that they have exactly 3 oranges. And I know that they have exactly 2 bananas. And I know that apples and oranges and bananas are all fruits. And I know that they do not have any other fruits. Then, I don't have to have direct evidence that they have a total of 9 fruit, in order to prove or know that they do. I don't have to be able to count them all. I can use logic to determine, with certainty, that they have a total of 9 fruits. So long as the links, or the posits, in the original logic chain are certain, and the logic which links them is not faulty, then the resulting conclusion of the logic chain is a certainty.
Last edited:
This_person
Well-Known Member
The bolded portions represent a lack of logical thought - a leap of *ahem* faith. This is where the breakdown is at (on a grand scale - the lack of explaination for the mechanism, plus the lack of evidence of connections between major animal classes, and the lack of ability to reproduce a consistent variation with the exact same conditions) which provides holes in "evolution" as a theory for the production of humans on earth.
While it can be demonstrated that species change, the mechanism by which they change is a complete unknown, has not been reproducable, and has not been even close to proven that a sponge can beget cats and rats and elephants.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Oh, I forgot to address what I wrote in red.... The implication is clear, then, that humans should not help one another or provide food, shelter, clothing, etc., to the week and poor - right? For, if we do this, that implies that we are weakening our own posterity, aren't we?
smdavis65
...
That was Dewain wasn't it?
smdavis65
...
Or was that Roger?
This_person
Well-Known Member
I thought that was Raja
should not is a moral judgement, evolution makes no moral judgements.
however, if we were only looking to advance our species then it would be unwise to help those that are less healthy reproduce.
They call it DNA little fella, DNA exchanged through reproduction
smdavis65
...
memory... fuzzy.... so... long... ago... :shrug:
Tilted
..
It's not a break down in logic - for the purpose of this particular logic chain it doesn't matter why those posits are true, just that they are. There is no assertion in the conclusions as to why those phenomena are true, that is a completely different subject and has nothing to do with the what I am stating.
It is certainly possible to make other logic chains that assert with specificity what those reasons are, although the inherent truth of the requisite posits would be less certain. There is evidence that causes us to believe we know what some of those reasons are - but there is certainly more room to argue their validity. I'm only saying what I feel I can state with certainty - nothing more. And then, I'm positing the facts that are necessary to demonstrate, with certainty, that those statements are true. And, like I said - the reasons why some traits make a living thing more likely to survive, and the reasons why some divergent traits come into the picture, aren't relevant to the accuracy of the precise statements I am making. I don't think that you and I are disagreeing on the very narrow things I am asserting.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Interesting. Since evolution knows no morals, than the entire thing sounds like it would fail quickly - either by people not helping others (since that would weaken the species), or by people helping others, thereby weakening the species, thereby destroying the species in the process.
Yeah, that won't work.
And, how many life forms started this process? Just one, right?They call it DNA little fella, DNA exchanged through reproduction
So, all of the diversified DNA to create all of the life forms that ever existed - estimated to be over 1000 times the total number of species that exist today - all came from ONE cell.
Must have been quite a cell.
Tilted
..
In the above logic, I'm not making any judgments about what should or shouldn't happen. I'm merely observing certain phenomena that do exist, and extrapolating necessary, logical conclusions from them. I'm not even saying that certain traits are 'desirable' or undesirable, merely that certain traits do have an effect on survivability.
In specific though, those traits that living things possess, whereby they are inclined to help other similar living things, and the degree to which they possess those traits, play a role in the whole process, just the same as any other traits.
again you have an issue separating the origins of life and evolution (why am i not surprised?).
the validity of evolution doesn't depend on how many life forms started the process, 1 or 1 million.....