The Lord Jesus condemns evolution in a private revelation.

[Kaesekopf]

Xavier, stop trying to canonize agreda by writing "Saintly" (sic)

Sent from my STV100-1 using Tapatalk

[Jayne]

The approach to theistic evolution described by Greg seems consistent with the classical/scholastic understanding of humans as "rational animals".  We are not "just hairless apes".  We have souls like angels have in bodies like animals have.  Recognizing that we share common physical features with animals, while being significantly different from them, has always been part of Catholic thought.  I see no reason for this idea to suddenly start confusing people about the seriousness of sexual sins.

The problem is that it's difficult to see in the smooth transition from one primate to the next primate where "reason" magically comes in. The infusion of a rational soul by God? Most evolutionists do see the need for that so they assume that man is not any more a "rational animal" than a chimpazee, just one with a higher-functioning brain. Seeing as we are not "rational animals", there is no shame in fornicating like the other beasts; in fact, as Freud argues, it would be more damaging to us to not fornicate because that is "sexual repression". Can there be any denying that this is how evolutionists tend to think?

That very well may be the way that secular evolutionists think, but the whole point of theistic evolution is that it recognizes God as Creator.  God uses the process of evolution as a tool to create the physical form He wishes for humans  and then infuses the soul.  There is no reason to think that theistic evolutionists would reject the traditional concept of man as a rational animal or embrace a Freudian understanding of sex.

You are rejecting theistic evolution on the grounds that its proponents will make the same errors that secular evolutionists do, but this is highly unlikely because theistic evolution is significantly different.

Also, I don't think it agrees with the classical/scholastic understanding, because the classical/scholastic understanding is that the soul is the substantial form of the human body, not something stuffed into the body at some arbitrary point in its evolutionary line. The human body was made to live in union with the human soul; it did not have a kind of pre-existence as a spirit-less primate body.

As I understand the view of theistic evolution, it also posits that the human body was made to live in union with the human soul.  God created this human body over time rather than in an instant, exercising His Providence through the process of evolution.  Man was not ensouled at "some arbitrary point" but when the physical aspect matched the soul intended for it.

[Greg]

Greg stated:

I agree, but a straight forward reading of scripture is hardly par for the course with the Church.

The Church teaches that in interpreting S.S. The literal meaning should generally be followed, unless there is sufficient reason to depart from this meaning; an example would be Our Lord telling His disciples that they must take up their cross and follow Him; or that we have to hate the members of our family in order to be His disciples. What are the compelling reasons to depart from the Genesis narrative? Macro evolution is impossible. Nature has no power to produce a spiritual, rational and immortal soul.

Yet if God makes men from slime then why make them similar biologically very similar to apes?

Why tempt man to think they must have a common ancestor?  Seems slight agent provacteur to me.  Like he is throwing chairs for me to fall over.

He certainly didn't pull out all the stops to make men very different.  If the closest beast was a lion, then evolution would be no accepted by a vast majority.

[Michael Wilson]

But why not make him similar to apes? Man in his body is an animal.


Man shares genetic similarities with many animals: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/25335-Percentage-of-genetic-similarity-between-humans-and-animals

It is very difficult to find reliable data comparing the human genome to animal genome. The principal reason is that few animals have had their full genome sequenced. Even those that have cannot be easily compared in terms of percentages because the genomic length and chromosomal division can vary greatly from one species to another.

Scouring the Web, here is what I have found so far.

- Genome-wide variation from one human being to another can be up to 0.5% (99.5% similarity)

- Chimpanzees are 96% to 98% similar to humans, depending on how it is calculated. (source)

- Cats have 90% of homologous genes with humans, 82% with dogs, 80% with cows, 79% with chimpanzees, 69% with rats and 67% with mice. (source)

- Cows (Bos taurus) are 80% genetically similar to humans (source)

- 75% of mouse genes have equivalents in humans (source), 90% of the mouse genome could be lined up with a region on the human genome (source) 99% of mouse genes turn out to have analogues in humans (source)

- The fruit fly (Drosophila) shares about 60% of its DNA with humans (source).

- About 60% of chicken genes correspond to a similar human gene. (source)


The number of genes across a few tested species can be compared on HomoloGene.

So if you eliminate the temptation of the Apes, you would still have the temptation of the Cows (80%); Cats (90%); Dogs (80 %); So why are there no scientist advocating our descent from Mice (75%)?  which are much higher than Chimpanzees (69 %).
Are they really "being tempted by God" or are they trying to avoid the only real solution? (God)

[GloriaPatri]

But why not make him similar to apes? Man in his body is an animal.


Man shares genetic similarities with many animals: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/25335-Percentage-of-genetic-similarity-between-humans-and-animals

It is very difficult to find reliable data comparing the human genome to animal genome. The principal reason is that few animals have had their full genome sequenced. Even those that have cannot be easily compared in terms of percentages because the genomic length and chromosomal division can vary greatly from one species to another.

Scouring the Web, here is what I have found so far.

- Genome-wide variation from one human being to another can be up to 0.5% (99.5% similarity)

- Chimpanzees are 96% to 98% similar to humans, depending on how it is calculated. (source)

- Cats have 90% of homologous genes with humans, 82% with dogs, 80% with cows, 79% with chimpanzees, 69% with rats and 67% with mice. (source)

- Cows (Bos taurus) are 80% genetically similar to humans (source)

- 75% of mouse genes have equivalents in humans (source), 90% of the mouse genome could be lined up with a region on the human genome (source) 99% of mouse genes turn out to have analogues in humans (source)

- The fruit fly (Drosophila) shares about 60% of its DNA with humans (source).

- About 60% of chicken genes correspond to a similar human gene. (source)


The number of genes across a few tested species can be compared on HomoloGene.

So if you eliminate the temptation of the Apes, you would still have the temptation of the Cows (80%); Cats (90%); Dogs (80 %); So why are there no scientist advocating our descent from Mice (75%)?  which are much higher than Chimpanzees (69 %).
Are they really "being tempted by God" or are they trying to avoid the only real solution? (God)

You do realize that Chimpanzees share 96% of their genome with us, right? Which is more than the 75% we share with mice. Which only shows that our common ancestor with chimpanzees is more recent than our common ancestor with mice. Nothing you quoted serves as evidence against evolution.

[Vetus Ordo]

The problem with theistic evolution is that it is not necessary or convenient.

Actually, it was pretty much an intellectual necessity in the face of the triumph of evolutionary science.

It was a do or die question.

Either theistic evolution was more or less adopted as the position of the mainline Christian traditions when it came to the question of origins, or they would have sunk to utter irrelevance.

There is space for debate and questioning on an individual level but an official position had to be adopted and had to conform to evolution. There was no other way.

The triumph of evolutionary science is really the triumph of evolutionary propaganda. The Church did not have to succumb to the propaganda. It could have insisted that the science has not been established (which is the truth), and would be in a much more favourable position intellectually today and in the coming years. Of course, it would have been lambasted for not yielding to the propaganda of the secularist establishment, but that is inevitable anyway.

But because the Church gave credence to the propaganda it now has to go through the process of disentangling itself from evolutionary thought, as the secularist world order gradually collapses and with it the evolutionary dogma.

I wouldn't describe the modern scientific consensus regarding Evolution as a result of propaganda. Despite the naturalistic bias that permeates the sciences, that's not really how things work.

Evolution became an established scientific fact by the mid 20th century. As further as we advanced towards the 21st century and as our knowledge of DNA deepened, the evolutionary facts of common descent and speciation became indisputable, regardless of any insufficiencies of Darwinism itself to explain the mechanisms of Evolution. That's just the reality that we face. The Church had to take a formal position on the matter and concede. And she did.

There was no other reasonable way out, as far as I can see.

[Mono no aware]

Not only is there the 96-97% DNA commonality with chimpanzees, but there's also the compelling evidence in vestigial traits, such as the coccyx and the appendix (which, if evolution is untrue, are inexplicable).  All human embryos have a tail that they later lose during gestation; why does this occur if humans aren't descended from creatures that once had tails?  Some humans are even born with vestigial tails.  It makes no sense that the genes for tails would be in the DNA of a tailless creature, unless there were tails in its ancestry.  We also carry non-coding DNA for full body hair, the same DNA chimps and gorillas have to grow their coats.  And even though these genes don't activate in humans, humans can still grow full body hair (though not atavistic) because we carry other genes that can do it.  Properly speaking, it's a mutation, and not a vestigiality, but when someone has hypertrichosis (as Julia Pastrana did), it's genetic, and will likely be passed on to the offspring.  Such is the mutability of things.

[Vetus Ordo]

Not only is there the 96-97% DNA commonality with chimpanzees, but there's also the compelling evidence in vestigial traits, such as the coccyx and the appendix (which, if evolution is untrue, are inexplicable).  All human embryos have a tail that they later lose during gestation; why does this occur if humans aren't descended from creatures that once had tails?  Some humans are even born with vestigial tails.  It makes no sense that the genes for tails would be in the DNA of a tailless creature, unless there were tails in its ancestry.  We also carry non-coding DNA for full body hair, the same DNA chimps and gorillas have to grow their coats.  And even though these genes don't activate in humans, humans can still grow full body hair (though not atavistic) because we carry other genes that can do it.  Properly speaking, it's a mutation, and not a vestigiality, but when someone has hypertrichosis (as Julia Pastrana did), it's genetic, and will likely be passed on to the offspring.  Such is the mutability of things.

Astonishingly, Pastrana was able to mate and give birth to a baby.

The impulse for sexual reproduction seemingly breaks all barriers.

[Michael Wilson]

G.P. Stated:

You do realize that Chimpanzees share 96% of their genome with us, right? Which is more than the 75% we share with mice. Which only shows that our common ancestor with chimpanzees is more recent than our common ancestor with mice. Nothing you quoted serves as evidence against evolution.

G.P.
I'm not arguing against evolution I'm arguing against the commonality of DNA as evidence of evolution (from another species, that is).  Man was created directly by God, and Eve was created from Adam; there is no room for any original "hairless apes" in the narration. Therefore no room for evolution. Either throw evolution for men out or throw Genesis out. 

[Mono no aware]

Astonishingly, Pastrana was able to mate and give birth to a baby.

The impulse for sexual reproduction seemingly breaks all barriers.

Yes, and the baby carried the same genes.  The chances of a person with hypertrichosis passing on the genes for it is 50% with a normal partner, and presumably much higher with a partner who also carries it.  Charles Darwin knew of three generations of Burmese with full body hair (and, in hypertrichosis, it even grows on the face).

[Michael Wilson]

Please do not post my and my family's picture any more, without my permission.
Tks.