Adam, Eve and Evolution

[Vindex_Urvogel]

steve b:

Now, whether you believe we come from one ancestoral stock (polyphyletic) or from more than one ancestral stock, (polyphyletic), one tries to classify organisms in an ordered system of natural relationships (taxonomy) from this ancestral stock view.

No, that would be phylogeny. Your ignorance does not allow you to redefine taxonomy as you see fit, I am afraid to say. Taxonomy is solely concerned with nomenclature. Try again, chap.

Poly, and Monophyletic refer to taxons, of which I certainly would not be polyphyletic as you quessed.I believe we came from one ancestreal stock.

Wrong again. They refer to clades. And by the way, the plural of taxon is taxa.

So let’s cut the crud. I’m not impressed with your avalanche of terms. Quite frankly, I think it’s a cover up because you can’t connect the dots.

And quite frankly you display such an inept understanding of systematics and classification that you should probably be barred from speaking of the terms until you have read even part of the requisite literature. I suggest starting at Simpson (1961).

When you ask me about poly and monophyletic, and do I know what it means, in my book you’re talking about schools of ancestral thought. And that has to do with taxonomy.

And as we already discussed, your “book”, most fortunately, has nothing but subjective value to one highly misinformed individual, and has not one whit to do with actual science.

Form and structure will get you only so far. DNA is olutely a crucial componant

This thus means that morphology is not a reliable data set? Why?

I have provided none so far. I have let you guys define the terms and control the tempo. All I have done so far is play off of what you guys have said.

I would venture that this is because you are not interested in any position but your own. By failing to provide any explicit evidentiary standard you protect your standpoint from any falsification in that you can always ad-hoc your way out of any data brought to bear on the problem. You have committed yourself to no standard by which your position might be falsified and thus are not interested in anything but the preservation of your viewpoint. This is not science. You are attempting to define nature, not describe it and are at best practicing philosophy, though I think I will not tarnish that discipline by attributing your actions thereto. Until such time as you provide an explicit evidentiary standard, rational discussion with you will be as easy as nailing fog to a wall.

Vindex Urvogel

 

[Booger]

Excellent job Vindex Urvogel!

 

[Oolon_Colluphid]

steve b:

I probably ought to ignore you at this point but I’ll play along for awhile longer.

Ignoring is a standard creationist tack to take when cornered. Whilst I agree that Vindex seems to have a problem putting this stuff in everyday language, I can understand his frustration. So, since **I **am putting things as simply as I can, maybe you would be kind enough to answer my questions?

Now, whether you believe we come from one ancestoral stock (polyphyletic) or from more than one ancestral stock, (polyphyletic), one tries to classify organisms in an ordered system of natural relationships (taxonomy) from this ancestral stock view.

Poly, and Monophyletic refer to taxons, of which I certainly would not be polyphyletic as you quessed.I believe we came from one ancestreal stock.
(Oolon’s emphases)

And I note that you do not understand the terms you are using back at us. Repeating ‘polyphyletic’ and misattributing one of them looks like you’ve copied and pasted them – nobody writing these afresh would confuse the two… not if they were familiar with them.

So let’s cut the crud. I’m not impressed with your avalanche of terms. Quite frankly, I think it’s a cover up because you can’t connect the dots.

If you want to walk the walk, you have to talk the talk. If you want to discuss phylogenies, you need this basic lingo. So I agree: let’s cut the crud. I am not impressed by your evasion. Quite frankly, I think it’s a cover-up because you cannot face what the evidence tells us. Now, are you going to answer my questions, or will we get more evasion and irrelevancies?

When you ask me about poly and monophyletic, and do I know what it means, in my book you’re talking about schools of ancestral thought.

Schools of thought?! No, they are terms used to talk about relationships between groups. You don’t get monophyleticists vs polyphyleticists! Wolves and dogs are a monophyletic group to everyone, creationists included. Marsupial moles and placental moles, despite living very similar lives and having many features in common because of that, are a polyphyletic group to everyone.

And that has to do with taxonomy.

Well duh.

Form and structure will get you only so far. DNA is absolutely a crucial componant

So we can’t discuss taxonomy without DNA? Linnaeus was f*cked then, wasn’t he? DNA helps, because its patterns are copied down generations. And it can elucidate areas of confusion, such as Old and New World raptors (eagles vs condors) being – wait for it – polyphyletic. But I fail to see why you think DNA is critical. Thing is, though, where we do have DNA evidence too, it overwhelmingly agrees with morphological phylogenies, such as grouping marsupials together whether they are moles or wombats or quolls or wallabies.

And it agrees with human-great ape monophyly too. Please respond to my point about the chromosome fusion. And let me make you aware, if you weren’t already, of the broken vitamin C synthesis gene we share with the other apes.

I have provided none so far. I have let you guys define the terms and control the tempo. All I have done so far is play off of what you guys have said.

How wonderfully magnanimous. Maybe you were expecting a full course in evolutionary biology when we reply to your unsubstantiated assertions? But it’s time to cut the crud, as you put it. Tell us what would count – for you – as evidence of ape and human shared ancestry. Tell us why the evidence we have does not count. In other words, put up or shut up.

 

[Oolon_Colluphid]

buffalo:

There is still a lack of scientific evidence.

No, there is still a lack of scientific education. I’m getting pretty sick of people spouting these assertions. So come on then, out with it: what scientific evidence do you think is lacking?

The issue is that theologically it cannot stand.

How theology deals with the facts is your problem. But it managed to cope with Copernicus and Galileo, so it shouldn’t be insurmountable.

 

[Oolon_Colluphid]

buffalo:

If man is a higher order of animal uniquely created (inserted) by God it is reasonable we should share some or even many attributes.

Please could you explain your reasoning here. It seems to me that if we were created separately and uniquely, there’d be no reason for us to share anything much. Perhaps you are not grasping what the term ‘uniquely’ means? If we were drawn up on a blank slate, why copy an ape so slavishly? Why copy an ape to the extent of giving us the same retroviral insertions and a disabled vitamin C gene? To the extent of giving us a coccyx?

It does not prove that we are descended from animals.

Firstly, we are still animals. And secondly: well duh. That is why I said (and you even quoted!) “This in itself is not to argue that we share a common ancestor with *Pan * and Gorilla”.

 

[Oolon_Colluphid]

PhilVaz:

Go to a library (as I have), check out a book on paleontology (as I have), and you will find (for example, from Carroll’s Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution)

“During the past 20 years, our knowledge of fossil vertebrates has increased immensely. Entirely new groups of jawless fish, sharks, amphibians, and dinosaurs have been discovered, and the major transitions between amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and mammals, and dinosaurs and birds have been thoroughly studied. Evidence from both paleontology and molecular biology provides much new information on the initial radiation of both birds and placental mammals.” (Carroll, page xiii preface).

And note that Carroll’s book is desperately in need of a new edition: it came out in 1988 (iirc). Since then, the situation has only gotten much, much worse for creationists.

There are indeed gaps since the fossil record has only been mined the past 200 or so years, but there are dozens of examples of intermediates in this article by Kathleen Hunt, I double-checked her references to Carroll (Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution) and they are indeed correct.

And more to the point, every one of the intermediates is what evolution predicts. Whereas creation expressly predicts that there can be no intermediates (since things were created separately, there never where any). So even just one intermediate refutes the creationist position. Yet we have loads of them. So creationists who complain about lack of intermediates between particular groups are completely missing the fact that the ones we do have already, refute them utterly.

 

[steve_b]

Vindex Urvogel:

No, that would be phylogeny. Your ignorance does not allow you to redefine taxonomy as you see fit, I am afraid to say.

I made the error of typing polyphyletic twice. A typo that;s all. I know mono means one and poly means more than one. You knew what I meant based on what I said. If that is the kind of cheap point you like making it’s no wonder you’re having trouble explaining how apes become human.
Vindex Urvogel:

Taxonomy is solely concerned with nomenclature. Try again, chap.

As in the classification of organisms in ordered systems of natural relationships? I know this.
Vindex Urvogel:

Wrong again. They refer to clades. And by the way, the plural of taxon is taxa.

Still on my typo error? I was referring to monophyletic which I was using as it concerns a single taxon of decendants from one stock
Vindex Urvogel:

And quite frankly you display such an inept understanding of systematics and classification that you should probably be barred from speaking of the terms until you have read even part of the requisite literature. I suggest starting at Simpson (1961).

And quite frankly, if this was a theological conversation, and you were trying to convince me of your side, you’d lose based on your total lack of charity and teaching ability. People like you only have their ego in mind. All the rest of your adhominum attacks deleted snip

Nice talking with you

 

[steve_b]

Oolon Colluphid:

Ignoring is a standard creationist tack to take when cornered. Whilst I agree that Vindex seems to have a problem putting this stuff in everyday language, I can understand his frustration. So, since **I **am putting things as simply as I can, maybe you would be kind enough to answer my questions?

You both lack Charity.
Oolon Colluphid:

And I note that you do not understand the terms you are using back at us. Repeating ‘polyphyletic’ and misattributing one of them looks like you’ve copied and pasted them – nobody writing these afresh would confuse the two… not if they were familiar with them.

No I made a mistake. I know what poly vs mono is.
Oolon Colluphid:

If you want to walk the walk, you have to talk the talk. If you want to discuss phylogenies, you need this basic lingo. So I agree: let’s cut the crud. I am not impressed by your evasion. Quite frankly, I think it’s a cover-up because you cannot face what the evidence tells us. Now, are you going to answer my questions, or will we get more evasion and irrelevancies?

I’ll tell you the same as I told you’re friend. You have no charity. So it wouldn’t matter what you said, and so far you have not even closely proved your point, your style is a turnoff.
All the rest of your adhominum insults deleted[snip]

Nice talking to you

 

[buffalo]

Oolon Colluphid:

No, there is still a lack of scientific education. I’m getting pretty sick of people spouting these assertions. So come on then, out with it: what scientific evidence do you think is lacking?

How theology deals with the facts is your problem. But it managed to cope with Copernicus and Galileo, so it shouldn’t be insurmountable.

Facts as you can see them through the lens you are looking through. You cannot say or prove that you have absolute knowledge. What may these same facts look like looking from say the 8th dimension. Might be quite a different deal.

I can say I am pretty sick and tired of your taking a small bit of evidence and saying that we can derive the full truth from it. I say at this point you cannot.

And how do you answer the point that God could have inserted man at any point in history.

 

[Oolon_Colluphid]

steve b:

You both lack Charity.

You lack substantive rebuttals.

So it wouldn’t matter what you said, and so far you have not even closely proved your point, your style is a turnoff.
All the rest of your adhominum insults deleted[snip]

Nice talking to you

Brave Sir Stevie ran away,
Bravely ran away, away.
When evidence reared its ugly head
He bravely turned his tail and fled…
So silence me. Put me in my place. Annihilate my argument. Tear it apart… Ferchrissakes do *something * other than question my style and lack of charity. In other words, quit with the ad hominems and respond to the arguments.

 

[Ghosty]

Buffalo: That’s not a rebuttal of the scientific evidence, I’m afraid. Would you mind explaining how the mitochondrial DNA could be understood differently?

God certainly could have inserted the human into history, both biologically and spiritually, but I think it’s far more likely that the soul was inserted and the body evolved. It fits the DNA evidence much better, and it also falls well within God’s methodology of evolution in theology.

 

[batteddy]

Relationships between brothers and sisters, while highly discouraged in our culture, are NOT, strictly speaking, incestuous.

Incest is in the Direct Line of Descent and Ancestry…so no fathers and daugthers…grandmothers and grandsons etc…

But everything else, at least strictly speaking, could be allowed. First cousins, aunts and nephews, and even brothers and sisters…especially if necessary to procreate a human race…

 

[buffalo]

Ghosty:

Buffalo: That’s not a rebuttal of the scientific evidence, I’m afraid. Would you mind explaining how the mitochondrial DNA could be understood differently?

God certainly could have inserted the human into history, both biologically and spiritually, but I think it’s far more likely that the soul was inserted and the body evolved. It fits the DNA evidence much better, and it also falls well within God’s methodology of evolution in theology.

Now we are getting somewhere. At least you concede the possibility exists, but don’t believe the evidence we can find supports it.

So we have a couple of different theories.

Mitochondrial DNA - what is it that the research shows that is common, and what is not common?

 

[batteddy]

What about a huge radioactive disaster?

There has been spoken of a 1000 person bottleneck, and then someone said this could only be the most recent bottleneck after a pair of two grew to 100000 but 90000 died…but then it was pointed out that from genetic testing we can see the diversity of the group before the 1000 person bottleneck and they didn’t come from two…

But what if the hypothetical disaster that killed off the 90000 was some sort of mutating radioactivity, that killed most people with damaging cancers and useless mutations and stuff…but gave those 1000 the diversity we see today…and believe in the genetic record came from their diverse ancestors…but maybe not…couldn’t the diversity of the 1000 who were the surving descendents of the hypothetical 2 have had the Diversity simply Inserted so that it appears that it came from ancestors, but really came from mutations that also killed the other descendents of the Two?

 

[Ghosty]

Mitochondrial DNA - what is it that the research shows that is common, and what is not common?

The mitochondrial evidence I’m talking about doesn’t refer to any relationship between apes and humans, though I suppose it could. Rather it measures the time of a split between different human groups based on the rate of mutation of mitochondrial DNA. Mitochondrial DNA mutates at a fairly constant rate, almost like a long term biological clock. These mutations are generally benign and amount to little more than “visual” clues as to the time of seperation. Since mitochondrial DNA is only passed from the mother, it doesn’t do the kind of recombining in new children that typical DNA does, and therefore is much easier to track.

I’ll use a very simplified example to demonstrate the basics. Let’s make up an arbitrary number and say that every 4 generations, mitochondria “changes” by 1%, meaning that 1% of the 4th generation’s mitochondrial DNA will look different from the 1st generation’s. If you take two people out of the current population and examine their mitochondrial DNA, and they’re 33% different from eachother, then you can count back how many generations they must have shared the same maternal “grandmother”. It’s not always exact, but it’s fairly accurate because of the constant rate of change in the mitochondria. It’s like being able to tell how long something was left out in the rain and wind based on how much weathering has occured to it, but much more accurate.

Based on this, we’ve found that the common maternal ancestor of all humanity is much further back than a literal reading of Genesis would indicate, as the number of generations from the “first woman” to modern day does not sufficiently account for the variation between, say, an Aborigine and a Nigerian. Mitochondrial evidence does NOT indicate, however, when a soul was introduced to humanity, nor does it indicate paternal deviation (a population of Nigerian males could have moved to Australia and mated with every female there, and the mitochondrial DNA would still show hundreds of generations of seperation). Males are also capable of having many more children than females, so the spread of the “soul” inheritance could be far greater than the spread of mitochondrial DNA would indicate. All it can show is when a common biological mother for all humanity existed.

 

[Ghosty]

A quick element to point out: If Cain’s wife was not the daughter of Eve, for example, but from a biologically human but soulless stock, then Cain’s and Seth’s children, while having a common ancestry from Eve (and therefore inheriting all elements of her nature), would have FAR different mitochondrial DNA, indicating a split of many generations. This is because while Cain and Seth would have the same generation of mitochondrial DNA deviation, their sperm would not pass on any mitochondrial information. They would appear mitochondrially close, while their children could appear to be seperated by centuries of seperate breeding.

 

[GeorgeCooney]

hecd2:

The tract basically positions what Catholics can and cannot believe with regard to Adam and Eeve in an authoritarian way. It meddles in natural science. And it’s wrong. It’s basically setting up the Catholic faith for another embarassing fall.
One would have thought the Church would have learned from history in announcing this or that teaching that bears on the natural world and is subsequently shown by scientists to be wrong. The tract is riddled with such language:

‘the Church has infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing’

‘The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age’

'It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2-3) as a fiction. The human race really did descend from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) rather than a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

It is this last absurd statement that I would like to focus on, because it is one where the Church (yet again) is setting itself up for a prat-fall. In fact all the molecular and fossil evidence indicates that the human species is not descended from an original pair of of two human beings. The evidence overwhelmingly points to a pool of early humans. There is no evidence for a population bottleneck of a single couple within the time that humans can be called fully human. The tightest population bottlenecks occur between 75,000 and 60,000 years ago when the early human population might have been as small as a few thousand. It is also the case that Y-chromosome Adam (the Most Recent Common ancestor in the strictly male line of descent) dates to about 75,000 years ago. Mitochondrial Eve, the Most Recent Common Ancestor in the strictly female line dates to 175,000 years ago.

Alec
]

JMJ

I don’t know if the originator of this thread (quoted above) considers himself to be Catholic or not, but to be Catholic, dogmas may neither be doubted or argued!

A single, individual soul was created by God and joined to a single male body to create the first human, and all humans thereafter came from that first human. For Catholics to believe otherwise is heresy. There is nothing wrong with exploring the ways and means of nature, but to refuse to accept dogma leads one on long, useless, false pursuits which will end nowhere.

This threader also seems to believe that the Cathlic Church has been and is the enemy of science. Without the Catholic Church science would be nowhere today. It is the acceptance of the Truths of the Church that allow science to advance toward true discovery. Many civilizations prior to the Christian-Western civilization made spectacular, isolated discoveries, but could not sustain the pace, because of their faulty or lack of understanding of God. Look at the discoveries of the Chinese, the Egyptians, the Hindu, the Babylonians, the Maya, etc., etc.

It is the Christian recognition of a creation of absolute order by an Infinite God that allows science to progress step-by-step within this order. In the world of chaos there is no order and all attempts to analyze chaos results in chaos. Many of the above civilization having made an individual discovery by accident could not follow up because they assigned unruly divinity to many elements of nature. That brings the same results that come from assuming chaos.

A human is a material body given life by God through the individual creation of an immortal soul, all descended from the First we call Adam.

 

[Vindex_Urvogel]

steve b:

I made the error of typing polyphyletic twice. A typo that;s all. I know mono means one and poly means more than one. You knew what I meant based on what I said. If that is the kind of cheap point you like making it’s no wonder you’re having trouble explaining how apes become human.

No, no, no. Polyphyletic is not the same thing as phylogeny. They are completely different concepts.

As in the classification of organisms in ordered systems of natural relationships? I know this.

Umm, no, we already went over the actual definition of taxonomy, as opposed to yours. That is, the theoretical study of classification includings its bases, procedures and rules. Notice we say nothing about the actual evolutionary relationships of organisms, as classification is not phylogenetic reconstruction. Your utter lack of even rudimentary familiarity with the terms you are trying to use renders you at best lacking in credibility.

Still on my typo error? I was referring to monophyletic which I was using as it concerns a single taxon of decendants from one stock

Using “taxons” as the plural for “taxa” is an error in grammar, not typographical. It would be akin to saying that the plural of man is mans.

Huh…well, as this isn’t a theology conversation, but rather one of biological science (a concept you clearly haven’t the faintest understanding of), your screed has about this much relevance: _________

People like you only have their ego in mind.[/QOUTE]

And you bring to the table so many staggering facts…

All the rest of your adhominum attacks deleted [snip

My dear, confused, creationist. In order for an argumentum ad hominem to even occur, one must ignore data presented by an opponent in favor of attacking them personally. As you have not advanced so much as one iota of data in defense of anything you have said, it is by definition not possible for an argumentum ad hominem fallacy to have taken place. You can now add to your list of concepts which you abuse, logical fallacies.

Vindex Urvogel

[/quote]

 

[davidv]

Psalm89:

PhilVaz

1. Is the catechism infallible?
2. Is what the pope said about Adam and Eve infallible in this instance or was it his opinion? (in the chair of Peter)

1. To the best of my knowledge, no total document has been defined as infallible. In the words of the Catholic Encyclopedia, “…only doctrines of faith and morals, and facts so intimately connected with these as to require infallible determination, fall under tbe scope of infallible ecclesiastical teaching.” See newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm for more details on the conditions under which the protect of infallibility are invoked.
2. Depends on what is said. As indicated in previous posts, it very clear what we are expected to believe. All others are open to opinion and/or proof or disproof through disciplined scientific investigaton. However, as our shepard, it would be very unwise dismiss, out of hand, anything he says.

 

[hecd2]

Sorry for the long delay - I’ve been away for a wee while.

Ghosty:

Galileo’s formulation of Copernican Theory was absolutely false, and provably so.

Not so. Part of the evidence for his position (tides as evidence for earth rotation) was wrong. Much else was very tellingly correct

He tried to use the tidal motions to prove that the Earth spun, and it was countered by a churchman that the tides related to the moon, which is the correct answer. The problem was a scientific one, namely that the Copernican system, which was originally supported by the Church incidently, could not be adequately proven in the face of the popular system formulated by Ptolemy and Aristotle. The observatory tools required to adequately prove or disprove the Copernican hypothesis (Copernicus was wrong in many parts, incidently, but correct generally) did not exist for many years after Galileo’s death.

Exactly right. It was scientific problem that the Church had no business meddling in - he was found guilty of heresy, for heaven’s sake.

It is true that it was clergy that attacked the Copernican hypothesis, but the Church itself didn’t weigh in on the question for years, and only then warned to treat it as a hypothesis and not a proven theory. Meanwhile Galileo put forth is very flawed argument regarding the tides, and was enjoined to not teach on the subject publically, which he later did anyway.

He was enjoined not to teach the Copernican system not because of the tides problem but because the church was opposed to heliocentrism on scriptural grounds

The matter was originally a scientific one, not a matter of faith, despite the attacks on Copernican hypothesis by certain clergy. When Galileo could not demonstrate his hypothesis, and was scientifically proven incorrect in his foundations, he was censured.

Galileo was never proven incorrect ‘in his foundations’ - merely in one piece of evidence he put forward.

It only became a matter of faith vs. science much later, after Galileo made perceived attacks on the Pope and Church for not accepting his provably false demonstrations.

Perhaps you could give us a cite for Galileo’s attacks on the pope and the church

cont/d in a second post