What Do Catholics Believe In Accordance With Evolution?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='11 January 2010 - 02:52 PM' timestamp='1263243160' post='2034992']
I still want to know how we "differ" from our ancestors several hundred years ago.
[/quote]
If I had to take a shot in the dark, I'd guess that we'd find some very very slight skeletal differences, but are largely identical. We'd be on a plateau stage in punctuated equilibrium.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='11 January 2010 - 04:55 PM' timestamp='1263243334' post='2034998']
If I had to take a shot in the dark, I'd guess that we'd find some very very slight skeletal differences, but are largely identical. We'd be on a plateau stage in punctuated equilibrium.
[/quote]
I doubt if there are any differences at all [except those caused by environment - chemical in the water, nutrition] so I want Jim to explain his comment.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='11 January 2010 - 12:33 PM' timestamp='1263242017' post='2034971']
Explain how we are different from several hundred years ago?
[/quote]

well thats kind of like asking how tall your eight year old was 2 weeks ago in comparison to today, and concluding that human growth doesnt happen.

still, humans are taller, and we have adapted to our environment better(not a strictly physical change, more of a social evolution, but w/e. Redheads are slowly going extinct(within a couple generations apparently).
[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='11 January 2010 - 12:40 PM' timestamp='1263242442' post='2034980']
I think we're a little taller, but that's probably not evolution.


Jim is probably referring to a concept I also learned of punctuated equilibrium... basically that evolution is not, as our first instinct would be to assume, a long gradual process, but rather more like a series of steps, with changes happening quickly. Quickly, of course, in terms of the history of the world.
[/quote]

yeah, growing taller is evolution. kind of like giraffes growing taller as food sources near to the ground are used up.
and yeah, evolution does tend to happen in steps.


[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='11 January 2010 - 12:52 PM' timestamp='1263243178' post='2034993']
[spoiler]
[img]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h119/NoonienSoong_2006/EvolutionOfMan-pig.jpg[/img]
[/spoiler]
[/quote]

[cmotherofpirl]

Growing taller can be simply explained by nutrition, and please giveme a source for redheads dissappearing [ Lilred might be interested in that ]
Jim said several hundred years, I fail to see any documented evolutionary changes that has occurred in that time period.

[Nihil Obstat]

What I meant by saying "probably not evolution" is I think human height over the last few hundred years is more a function of environment than evolution. Of course I may be wrong, and it may be very subtle evolution.

[Nihil Obstat]

Ahhhh, J-Lo, we've got a problem!

That "redheads are disappearing" is a very well done satire. It's false. Completely untrue. We used that in Biology class to illustrate something about mutations which suddenly seems to escape my memory.

Oh right, it was used to illustrate the fallacy that negative mutations die out- they don't, which is contrary to popular perception.

Edited January 11, 2010 by Nihil Obstat

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='DanielNicholas' date='10 January 2010 - 11:48 PM' timestamp='1263185313' post='2034410']
So I've heard that they don't believe in human evolution, however they believe evolution has occured with animals.

What is the official opinion of this?

Also, The Catechism claims there are no conflicts with faith and science? But what about when the Catholic church put Galileo Galilei under house arrest for suggesting the Earth is flat? And they had burned people alive on the stake (I forgot his name), for the belief that the Earth is flat?
[/quote]

To echo cmotherofpirl's post on Galileo (I'm a science teacher, btw), have a look at this post that I put up to this same question a few months ago:

[quote name='mommas_boy' date='02 December 2009 - 11:43 PM' timestamp='1259815422' post='2013609']
Dude. I'm a scientist. And I can tell you that that Galileo was nothing more than a horrible scientist who just so happened to be right. Galileo's theories could not at the time answer the most powerful argument against them: parallax shifts.

What is a parallax shift? It's easier to show then to explain. Focus on the letter "O" below, and then follow these steps:

[center]"O"[/center]

[list=1]
[*]Look at the letter "O".
[*]Close your left eye, and continue to look at the letter.
[*]Hold up your index finger in 2 inches in front of your right eye so that it covers up the letter "O".
[*]Keep your finger in the same place, and at the same time: close your right eye and open your left.
[*]If you did it correctly, you should now be able to see the letter "O" because your finger is not in front of your left eye to block the letter.
[*]From your perspective, the "O" should not only be visible, [b]but your finger should appear to have moved[/b].
[/list]

This is a parallax shift. Your finger appeared to move because your point of observation changed. The strongest argument against Galileo's theory at the time was that if the earth moved around the sun, the resulting parallax shift would cause the North Star, which everyone knows doesn't move, to appear to trace a circle in the night sky over the course of a year. Galileo's theory couldn't answer the objection. Instead of advocating further research, it was Galileo who proclaimed his unfounded beliefs as "Gospel Truth". Ironically, the Church silenced Galileo in order to allow actual scientific dialogue and research to take place, and it was Galileo who was dogmatically preaching beliefs without scientific backing. The irony is that this is the [b]exact opposite[/b] of what popular culture would have us believe, because all history remembers is that Galileo [b]just so happened to be right[/b].
[/quote]

For more reading on this topic, I recommend this excellent tract from Catholic Answers:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp

[Arpy]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='11 January 2010 - 02:50 PM' timestamp='1263246656' post='2035023']
Ahhhh, J-Lo, we've got a problem!

That "redheads are disappearing" is a very well done satire. It's false. Completely untrue. We used that in Biology class to illustrate something about mutations which suddenly seems to escape my memory.

Oh right, it was used to illustrate the fallacy that negative mutations die out- they don't, which is contrary to popular perception.
[/quote]
Good, I like redheads. :3

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='11 January 2010 - 04:43 PM' timestamp='1263246226' post='2035020']
Growing taller can be simply explained by nutrition, and please giveme a source for redheads dissappearing [ Lilred might be interested in that ]
Jim said several hundred years, I fail to see any documented evolutionary changes that has occurred in that time period.
[/quote]

I'm not certain about evolutionary changes (as in, changes in visible phenotype), but it is a well known fact that mutations in DNA for a given gene pool do occur at a relatively constant rate, albeit quite slowly. For regions of DNA that encode for actual proteins (which could cause a change in visible phenotype), these regions experience mutations on the order of 1% of their length over the course of 50 million years. Non-encoding regions (but still critically important in their function as controlling switches enabling the encoding regions to "turn on or off" the encoding regions) experience mutations much more quickly: on the order of 0.7-0.8% per million years. And then there's the promoting regions which turn on and off the switches ...

To put it into perspective, some back-of-the-envelope calculations demonstrated that the encoding regions of DNA experience a mutation on average once every 111 years, while the non-encoding (switching) regions experience a mutation once every 2 years or so.

Why don't we see phenotype evidence of these mutations? Well, we do. We just call them by different names: miscarriages, cancer, genetic diseases, or just cellular apoptosis (a single cell in a body makes a copying mistake, has a mutation, and then just dies on its own without killing the rest of the body). But every once in a while, the right mutation happens at the right time and in the right place.

EDIT: I'm not certain if my "back-of-the-envelopes" are quite correct. What I'm unsure about is if the literature rates of change are for a single molecule of DNA being copied over and over again, or for an entire population's gene pool.

Edited January 11, 2010 by mommas_boy

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='11 January 2010 - 01:50 PM' timestamp='1263246656' post='2035023']
Ahhhh, J-Lo, we've got a problem!

That "redheads are disappearing" is a very well done satire. It's false. Completely untrue. We used that in Biology class to illustrate something about mutations which suddenly seems to escape my memory.

Oh right, it was used to illustrate the fallacy that negative mutations die out- they don't, which is contrary to popular perception.
[/quote]

dang it. i hate being wrong, but i am glad, cause redheads are awesome. still, would you mind backing that up? its currently as unsupported as my earlier statement.

edit: you are mostly right, after looking it up, recessive genes dont become extinct(unless everyone with them dies without reproducing) but they can become quite rare.




i think the best and most obvious evidence for evolution is all these new diseases that pop up, and antibiotic resistant bacteria.

Edited January 12, 2010 by Jesus_lol

[mommas_boy]

I'm planning my upcoming unit on evolution. Nova on PBS had this incredibly fascinating documentary called "What Darwin Never Knew", and I plan on showing it to my kids. You can watch the whole thing for free online here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/beta/evolution/darwin-never-knew.html

(( Click the "Watch What Darwin Never Knew" link, just below the picture of the chicken embryo. ))

There's also a lot of great interactive stuff on there too.

Anyway, the film is divided into two parts. The first is a pretty standard review of Darwin's basic theory. But the second is much more fascinating: it examines the biochemistry behind evolution -- just how these mutations come about.

For example, a mutation in just one base ... not even a base pair, but a single base in DNA is all that it took to inhibit the development of thigh-size muscles in apes that were attached to their jaws and the tops of their skulls. This is crucial to the researcher who discovered it because he theorized that it allowed our brains to reach their current size.

Great stuff. Have a look!

[Happy_Catholic]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='11 January 2010 - 04:48 PM' timestamp='1263246504' post='2035022']
What I meant by saying "probably not evolution" is I think human height over the last few hundred years is more a function of environment than evolution. Of course I may be wrong, and it may be very subtle evolution.
[/quote]

When I was doing a science paper, we covered why "modern" humans have not evolved, apparently one opinion is that we have no need to evolve biologically because we now just adapt the environment to suit ourselves as opposed to nature adapting us. For example, when we developed clothing, fire and shelter we lost our full body suit of fuzz. I'd reckon if we had ourselves a fancy nuclear war and we ended up back in the stone age, with very few individuals able to recreate our current society, we'd probably start evolving again or perhaps de-evolving.

I mean, how many people who play video games these days could know how to light a fire with two rocks? Would they know what rocks too look for? Or could the average Joe build a simple hydro dam or craft an antibotic?

Edited January 12, 2010 by Happy_Catholic

[sacredheartandbloodofjesus]

[quote name='DanielNicholas' date='10 January 2010 - 11:48 PM' timestamp='1263185313' post='2034410']
So I've heard that they don't believe in human evolution, however they believe evolution has occured with animals.

What is the official opinion of this?

Also, The Catechism claims there are no conflicts with faith and science? But what about when the Catholic church put Galileo Galilei under house arrest for suggesting the Earth is flat? And they had burned people alive on the stake (I forgot his name), for the belief that the Earth is flat?
[/quote]

Wasnt this DanielNicholas the same guy who came posting something like this and never returned? I think it was about the decline of Christianity according to numbers and the rise of atheism.

[Vincent Vega]

Oh the one who wore all the eye makeup?

[Guest DanielNicholas]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='12 January 2010 - 07:32 AM' timestamp='1263241963' post='2034968']however Galileo had no proof his theory was correct. The Church has been the greatest supporter of science until recent times, when governments started pouring money into research. 365 craters on the moon are namedfor Jesuit priests who were astronomers. The Big Bang Theory was first proposed by a priest [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif[/img]
[/quote]


Galileo had no proof his theory was correct? (Well to be considered a theory it requires evidence in the first place, otherwise it would be referred to as a hypothesus.)

I seriously, seriously doubt he had no proof. The Ancient Greeks and Arabs (After the arrival of Muhammad, Muhammad thought the Earth was flat) knew the Earth was spherical and measured how large this spherical Earth was based on measurements calculated from the shadows of the sun.

[Vincent Vega]

Firstly, it wasn't his theory, it was Aristarchus's. Secondly, the controversy was not about whether or not the Earth is flat, but rather if it orbited the sun, or if the sun orbited it.

[Guest DanielNicholas]

[quote name='CatherineM' date='11 January 2010 - 04:49 PM' timestamp='1263188978' post='2034441']
There is nothing in our teachings that are contrary to the theory of evolution. I love the term "intelligent design."
[/quote]


Intelligent design has nothing to do with evolution, It has been consistently show than you complex structure such as eyes, hearts, can be formed by small evolutionairy changes. It does not require a 'designer'. It's random in an essence, however it's not random?

[Guest DanielNicholas]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' date='12 January 2010 - 04:24 PM' timestamp='1263273861' post='2035225']
Firstly, it wasn't his theory, it was Aristarchus's. Secondly, the controversy was not about whether or not the Earth is flat, but rather if it orbited the sun, or if the sun orbited it.
[/quote]


I'm sort of convinced the bible does speak of a geocentric universe. It does often refer to the Earth has fixed, it can't be moved.

And in one bible story I read God had "froze the sun in the sky for a whole day".

But that would be impossible, because the Earth is spinning at 500 metres a second, and it's revolving around the sun at 30km per second.

If the Earth stopped suddenly (to make the sun appear frozen in the sky), wouldn't the sudden change of inertia throw everyone into spaces at hundreds of kilometres an hour?

Not to mention catastrophic changes to tidal systems and birds would fall out of the sky?

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='DanielNicholas' date='12 January 2010 - 01:22 AM' timestamp='1263273736' post='2035224']
Galileo had no proof his theory was correct? (Well to be considered a theory it requires evidence in the first place, otherwise it would be referred to as a hypothesus.)

I seriously, seriously doubt he had no proof. The Ancient Greeks and Arabs (After the arrival of Muhammad, Muhammad thought the Earth was flat) knew the Earth was spherical and measured how large this spherical Earth was based on measurements calculated from the shadows of the sun.
[/quote]
Feel free to doubt then . It had nothing to do with the earth being flat, everyone knew the earth was round, it considered if the sun orbited the earth or the earth the sun. And no he had to proof.

[Guest DanielNicholas]

[quote name='DanielNicholas' date='12 January 2010 - 04:33 PM' timestamp='1263274410' post='2035231']
I'm sort of convinced the bible does speak of a geocentric universe. It does often refer to the Earth has fixed, it can't be moved.

And in one bible story I read God had "froze the sun in the sky for a whole day".

But that would be impossible, because the Earth is spinning at 500 metres a second, and it's revolving around the sun at 30km per second.

If the Earth stopped suddenly (to make the sun appear frozen in the sky), wouldn't the sudden change of inertia throw everyone into spaces at hundreds of kilometres an hour?

Not to mention catastrophic changes to tidal systems and birds would fall out of the sky?
[/quote]


The Earth is spinning at 0.5km/per second which is [size="4"]1670 km/hr to get a sense of realization of how fast we're moving.[/size]