The Vatican Gives "Thumbs Up" To Darwin

[no name joe]

Pesiticides and herbicides on crops giving rise to stronger pests and weeds, or the use of antibiotics giving rise to a superbug IS evolution that we can see.

Natural selection is a very real thing. A species can develop a longer neck over time, for example, if the food that the species eat is higher off the ground. Those with genes for shorter necks die, and do not reproduce. Those with genes for longer necks reproduce, and ultimately, you have a species with universally longer necks in a given geographic area. In another area, the same species may have shorter necks because the food source is closer to the ground.

This is microevolution at work.

Over time, a new breed within the species can develop. Given a change in climate or environment, a characteristic that was rare within a species may come back because that rare characterisitc helps it survive in the new environment, when it was a hindrance in the old environment.

The evidence for microevolution....changes within a species, is undeniable.

If humans can isolate gene pools, and breed to produce desireable characteristics in dogs, nature can do the same. The characteristics that help a dog survive in a given environment will thrive.

God created creatures with the ability to adapt to different environments through this process. It really is an amazing thing. That is why I say microevolution and creation are completely compatable. New breeds of species can evolve and come into being. What evolutionary biologists have difficulty explaining, in my mind, is how one species can evolve into another.

[bzmomo7]

WHY is it, that when anyone brings up "evolution" in a Christian circle and it is obvious that the discussion is about MACROevolution, that the discussion is always derailed into how evolution is a "proven fact" because of microevolution? It is so annoying!

[Bakershalfdozen]

Exactly. Any Creationist debater will tell you that when they are debating between the two, they are always talking about macro-evolution. One species simply cannot change into another species. A dog will never eventually become a cat. A cherry tree will never eventually bear apples.

[John81]

Pesiticides and herbicides on crops giving rise to stronger pests and weeds, or the use of antibiotics giving rise to a superbug IS evolution that we can see.

Natural selection is a very real thing. A species can develop a longer neck over time, for example, if the food that the species eat is higher off the ground. Those with genes for shorter necks die, and do not reproduce. Those with genes for longer necks reproduce, and ultimately, you have a species with universally longer necks in a given geographic area. In another area, the same species may have shorter necks because the food source is closer to the ground.

This is microevolution at work.

Over time, a new breed within the species can develop. Given a change in climate or environment, a characteristic that was rare within a species may come back because that rare characterisitc helps it survive in the new environment, when it was a hindrance in the old environment.

The evidence for microevolution....changes within a species, is undeniable.

If humans can isolate gene pools, and breed to produce desireable characteristics in dogs, nature can do the same. The characteristics that help a dog survive in a given environment will thrive.

God created creatures with the ability to adapt to different environments through this process. It really is an amazing thing. That is why I say microevolution and creation are completely compatable. New breeds of species can evolve and come into being. What evolutionary biologists have difficulty explaining, in my mind, is how one species can evolve into another.

Do some more research. Everything you have stated here has been soundly refuted. While a few decades ago some of this was still believed to be possible, it's since been disproven. Evolution happens on no level and adaptation is not evolution.

[1Timothy115]

Do some more research. Everything you have stated here has been soundly refuted. While a few decades ago some of this was still believed to be possible, it's since been disproven. Evolution happens on no level and adaptation is not evolution.

John, I'll 2nd that.

[tired]

The Vatican is batting a thousand with this and allowing a holacaust denying "bishop" to be back in the fold. They would let Luciferians in the church if it meant more numbers. Wait a minute, they already have done that.

[kevinmiller]

Just a FYI, they got rid of that bishop that denied the holocaust.

[Alimantado]

WHY is it' date=' that when anyone brings up "evolution" in a Christian circle and it is obvious that the discussion is about MACROevolution, that the discussion is always derailed into how evolution is a "proven fact" because of microevolution? It is [b']so annoying!

Maybe because even the issue of micro-evolution can't be agreed upon by Creationists. There have been at least two definitions of it on this thread alone, perhaps three.

Kind_of_blue: Change that happens within 'species', both in the wild and by man's intervention.

Tim: Change that happens within 'species' but only by man's intervention. Adaptation doesn't happen in the wild.

That's a pretty big difference of opinion. The former would lead you to disagree with 'evolutionists', the latter would lead you to disagree with both 'evolutionists' and most Creation scientists.

One species simply cannot change into another species.

One problem with theories like this is that no-one can quite put their finger on what 'species' actually means! In biological circles, this is called the 'species problem'.

[tired]

I see the Vatican has pulled the "bishop" out. I stand corrected. Now I can hold hands with the RCC. :lol

[kevinmiller]

I don't think I would suggest that.

[bzmomo7]

Maybe because even the issue of micro-evolution can't be agreed upon by Creationists. There have been at least two definitions of it on this thread alone, perhaps three.

Kind_of_blue: Change that happens within 'species', both in the wild and by man's intervention.

Tim: Change that happens within 'species' but only by man's intervention. Adaptation doesn't happen in the wild.

That's a pretty big difference of opinion. The former would lead you to disagree with 'evolutionists', the latter would lead you to disagree with both 'evolutionists' and most Creation scientists.



One problem with theories like this is that no-one can quite put their finger on what 'species' actually means! In biological circles, this is called the 'species problem'.

Well, I understand what you mean, Al, but both of those views disagree with evolutionists. (and Baker's explained what she meant when she said a dog can't change into a cat.) I didn't mean that we can't discuss those differences in in micro- just that when the discussion is only about macro- and someone jumps in with the other--it not only highjacks the purpose of the thread, it seems to interject an arguementative tone into it as well, even if the person appears to not support macro-evolution. I understand the purpose of playing devil's advocate, I just think that it would be more useful (and less annoying) for the person to start a separate thread for micro-evolution opinion differences rather than tackling them both (macro- and micro-) in the same thread since they are quite different matters, indeed.

[Alimantado]

Fair enough, can't argue with that! As you were...

[Wilchbla]

Micorevolution usually refers to a variation within a species usually through breeding. I wouldn't argue with this. But even with this I had an evolutionists tell me there is no such thing as microevolution thus proving my point. They are always changing their religious belief system.

[JerryNumbers]

Catholics seem to almost accept anything, except for Bible truths, of which they have never liked the least bit. But what can we expect of lost people, its impossible for them to discern Bible truths, they have not the Holy Spirit to guide them to all truths.

1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.



Joh 8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.

Joh 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Joh 8:45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.

And think about the many Baptist who unquestionably accept RCC members as fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.

[heartstrings]

The Bible says 'after his kind".
What is a 'kind'?
Well, camelids, such as arabian camels and llamas, are evidently of the same 'kind' because they can interbreed. Many of the deer 'species' have been interbred to produce hybrids such as Sika deer/red deer, mule deer/whitetail deer, etc. African elephants can be crossed with asian elephants, and I would venture to say that if whooly mammoths were around now, they too could interbreed with 'modern' elephants., Wolves can interbreed with coyotes and domestic dogs. The equids like horses and zebras can all interbreed. Polar bears can cross with grizzlies. African buffalo, American bison, can interbreed with domestic cattle. Even snakes have been hybridized, as have fish.

The vast amount of variations that exist between domestic 'breeds', like dogs, were MANIFESTED through selective breeding. But the genes already existed. ALL dogs are dogs. A pug, is of the same 'species' as a whippet or grey hound, yet they look drasticly different.....but no more so than a lion in relation to a leopard, which incidently can also interbreed.

Even wild species, like wolves have variations as you will find that some wolves in the arctic tend to have white coats. Whitetailed deer in Canada have large, thick, heavy bodies, while the same species in the Florida keys are very small. I think God put the incredible abilty to diversify in each 'kind" from the beginning and these genes allow each one to adapt to various environments while still remaining the same 'kind'. Selective breeding has been going on for several thousand years now. And of all the shapes, sizes and colors, I've never heard of a dog 'evolving' into thing else but a dog......