Being a Theistic evolutionist?

[grannymh]

Hi grannymh,

I think you might be overstepping here. Evolution teaches that all human anatomies are in the same species, genetically similar and are perhaps biologically equivalent (or roughly so), but that’s a leap from what Catholicism teaches about Original Sin.

I need to stop at what Catholicism teaches about Original Sin, because there are a lot of teachings about Original Sin from the first three chapters of Genesis to Romans 5: 12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15: 21-22. From God as Almighty Creator to the Divinity of Jesus Christ.

What would you say are the particular Original Sin teachings which intersect with the teachings from the science of human evolution?

It sounds like you’re comparing apples and oranges. Remember, evolution is only concerned with the biological science, not the philosophical debate as the state of man’s relationship with God. So although you may hear overarching terms like “equality” in evolutionary science, it’s important to recognize that it’s within a biological context.

When it comes to the biological human, we have to deal with apples and oranges in the organic garden. This is because the union of the material world of science and the spiritual world of God is so profound that it forms a single human nature.
(CCC, 364-366) link to Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/
For more information, I suggest paragraphs 1730-1732 and paragraphs 355-421.

There may be a fair number of biologists who reject the possibility of Adam and Eve, but that doesn’t mean one can’t suggest that evolution was how God created Adam and Eve. Saying “I think biological evolution provides a good scientific explanation for how man was created” doesn’t contradict the possibility of Adam and Eve. It also doesn’t automatically subscribe oneself to the rest of the theories that other scientists may hold.

I am not sure what other theories you are referring to. However, it is not proper to simply refer to biological evolution without explaining what that entails. Current theories have the foundation that populations evolve genetically. Thus, one is faced with the simple observation that the first two humans actually refer to the first two real humans and not to a first human population.

But is that really the realm of science? I feel like science has no place determining the spiritual value of man. God forbid the day comes when science feels it can speak with authority on the spiritual! I think they’re much more simply focusing on the biological science that they can answer. Therefore, one must accept the limitations of what science can teach us, and appreciate it for what it is.

It is here where I struggled with a possible non sequitur. I wonder about confusion between the scientist who authored the research paper and the media and personal interpreters. When talking about limitations of scientific experiments, we do recognize the limitations. But we should not say that those limitations continue (possible non sequitur) to impede the scientist as a person. That does not logically follow because the human scientist has a free intellect.

In short, science is science. It’s man’s best guess at the “how” of the world around us. It in no way is meant to be taken at Gospel Truth. No one should allow it to replace their religious beliefs or override them.

Excellent.

 

[rossum]

Well, no. Mutation and natural selection presuppose a minimal amount of information because both presuppose and could not occur without replication.

RNA replication is a purely chemical process. It happens in a test tube. See the Spiegelman Monster for a relevant example.

Information could “be added” to an information rich base, but the genesis of that base is not explained by mutation and natural selection since both presuppose and rely on it.

Information can be added to an information poor base to make it an information rich base.

rossum

 

[rossum]

If the great majority of random changes are neutral we would expect to find a great deal of non-functional or “junk” code - code that does nothing or has no effect, which can be changed without making a substantial difference to the genome.

Correct. That is exactly what we find. About 5% of our genome directly codes for proteins. Another 10% is switches that turn genes off and on in the appropriate places: “Don’t make an eye here.”, “Do make an eye here.” There is a further 10% that is conserved (i.e. it has an important function) but we don’t yet know what it does. 50% is known to be junk – it mutates at the background rate for neutral mutations. The remaining 25% is still uncategorised. Hence, between 50% and 75% of our genome is “junk”.

There are also synonymous mutations, which are neutral and can happen anywhere.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Removes it or ignores it? Is it “hidden” and unused or deleted? How do you know?

We know because scientists have sequenced the genomes of some eyeless cave fish and their seeing relatives. In the cave a mutation making the fish blind will survive. What the scientists see is the mutated remnants of the original genes for eyes, called pseudogenes. Those pseudogenes are in the same position in the fishes’ genome and with parts of the original sequence still intact. What they see is exactly what you would expect to see if a previously functional gene was no longer subject to selection and was instead merely influenced by neutral drift. The number of mutations found in the pseudogene gives a rough measure of when the cave species separated from its sighted predecessors.

Similarly, the GULO pseudogene in our own genome give a rough measure of timings along the primate tree of descent. The GULO gene is part of the vitamin C manufacture system. Haplorrhine primates, including ourselves, all lack it and all have a non-functional GULO pseudogene occupying its place in our genome.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Science has ignored the fact that there exists a force that resists evolution through mutation and genetic drift. If such a force didn’t exist, we wouldn’t all look so similar -and we wouldn’t work properly.

There is such a ‘force’ and scientists are well aware of it. They call it “natural selection”, and it tends to reduce the amount of variation found in the genomes of a population.

Perhaps you missed it because it a process, not a force. There are strictly only four forces in science: electromagnetic, strong, weak and gravity.

rossum

 

[Peter_Plato]

There is such a ‘force’ and scientists are well aware of it. They call it “natural selection”, and it tends to reduce the amount of variation found in the genomes of a population.

Perhaps you missed it because it a process, not a force. There are strictly only four forces in science: electromagnetic, strong, weak and gravity.

rossum

I think this is overstating your case because it moves the “consistency” to outside of life forms rather than within them.

If we understand that much of what we view as differences in behaviour and body morphology is due to epigenetic rather than actual genetic differences we have a clearer understanding of what is involved.

Take a caterpillar and butterfly, for example. The same individual specimen, existing as a caterpillar or butterfly, has identical DNA through both forms, yet exhibits radical differences in body morphology, behaviour and food requirements. Why would this be so? Identical DNA but a butterfly and caterpillar are radically different in almost every way that any animal can be described.

It so happens that the nucleotide bases along the spine of the DNA molecule can be suppressed or activated by the presence of organic molecules such as methyls that attach to the four specific bases. These molecules, in sufficient numbers at the right locations can turn on and turn of massive phenotype traits - for example, the presence or absence of wings, antennae, food needs, organ differences, migration, etc.

Notice that the regulation of the production and sequencing of these chemicals that affect epigenetic traits is managed within the DNA code and triggered by environmental changes and changes to the body of the individual itself (food availability, temperature, growth stage, etc.)

If such massive morphological, behavioural and appearance differences are possible without changes to DNA it is not a great leap of logic to speculate whether at least some of what is attributed to mutation or changes in DNA are not at all differences, but owing to the manner in which the environment impacts epigenetic triggers in existing DNA. If the presence of wings on a butterfly is owing to epigenetic rather than genetic differences and these are handled within the DNA itself in response to the environment and needs of the individual, it is very possible that what we see as large differences in animal morphology may have derived from how the DNA itself responded to the environment rather than how the environment acted upon mutation or some other “traumatic” cause.

There is research being done on how changes to the epigenetic structure of DNA is passed on to succeeding generations by DNA incorporating beneficial change into the DNA “instructions” themselves, those passed on to the next generation as a kind of “designed” response to changing environmental conditions - feast-fast cycles in Northern European countries, for example.

In other words, DNA has the “selective” capabilities within it that make it prone for survival by adapting the code itself to changing environmental conditions. Rather than looking for an external mechanism, it might be that DNA itself contains within it a kind of coping strategy to handle changing conditions and that functionality has brought about the vast varieties of life forms, behaviour and survival features.

 

[rossum]

Take a caterpillar and butterfly, for example. The same individual specimen, existing as a caterpillar or butterfly, has identical DNA through both forms, yet exhibits radical differences in body morphology, behaviour and food requirements. Why would this be so? Identical DNA but a butterfly and caterpillar are radically different in almost every way that any animal can be described.

Consider your own head and your own foot. They also have the same DNA and yet are also radically different. As you say below, genes can be switched on or off. Toe genes are off in our head and on in our feet. The other way round for teeth. Scientists have come a long way towards understanding how this is done. The short answer is Hox genes. There is a very good popular coverage of what Hox genes are and how they operate in Neil Shubin’s “Your Inner Fish”. Well worth reading if your local library has a copy.

Insects have Hox genes too, and the changes in a butterfly lifecycle are mediated by Hox genes also. Hox genes have been identified in some very primitive organisms, as you would expect if they are found both in ourselves and insects. They predate the split between protostomes, like insects, and deuterostomes, like ourselves.

If such massive morphological, behavioural and appearance differences are possible without changes to DNA it is not a great leap of logic to speculate whether at least some of what is attributed to mutation or changes in DNA are not at all differences, but owing to the manner in which the environment impacts epigenetic triggers in existing DNA.

DNA can affect the expression of DNA. All genes have a series of switches in front of them that can block, or unblock, expression of the gene. Hox genes produce proteins that operate these switches, turning some on and others off. This is not an actual change to the DNA, but separate proteins attaching to the DNA chain, and affecting the expression of the downstream gene. Eye genes are present but turned off in our feet. Wing genes are present but turned off in a caterpillar or an insect larva.

rossum

 

[grannymh]

If we understand that much of what we view as differences in behaviour and body morphology is due to epigenetic rather than actual genetic differences we have a clearer understanding of what is involved.

Take a caterpillar and butterfly, for example. The same individual specimen, existing as a caterpillar or butterfly, has identical DNA through both forms, yet exhibits radical differences in body morphology, behaviour and food requirements. Why would this be so? Identical DNA but a butterfly and caterpillar are radically different in almost every way that any animal can be described.

The example of a caterpillar led me to this example from Google.
extension.berkeley.edu/search/publicCourseSearchDetails.do?method=load&courseId=41591&gclid=CK_w1qLnqL0CFaLm7AodU1cAyg
Epigenetics is the study of heritable changes in gene expression that do not involve changes in the DNA sequence. Epigenetic mechanisms play important roles in development from a fertilized egg into a complex human being, as well as in aging and in various diseases (including cancer).

“Complex human being” is the operative term because while different epigenetic mechanisms keep caterpillars from becoming human, all these types of epigenetics start with an original form of matter existing in time and space. Somehow, the material base for a human results in an extreme, peerless form of rationality. Visually and scientifically, one sees the obvious physical difference between a butterfly creature and a human creature.

So, how does one determine the intellectual difference between other creatures and the one species in which we belong?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I am not aware of any atheist who claims that the physical process of gravity is purely random. Nor are there any biologists who claim that natural selection is purely random. Someone is misinforming you.

Then inform us: if natural selection is neither intelligently designed nor random, what is it?

 

[rossum]

Then inform us: if natural selection is neither intelligently designed nor random, what is it?

The short, and humorous, version is: “If your parents didn’t have any children, then the chances are you won’t either.”

The long version includes mathematics. The process is a bit like compound interest. As an example, take a stable population of 100 organisms; on average each organism has one descendant in the next generation. Now let a beneficial mutation appear with a 1% advantage, so the mutated organism will have on average 1.01 descendants in the next generation and a second mutated organism with a 1% disadvantage. See what happens if we let the population reproduce for one thousand generations:

Generation  Deleterious   Normal   Beneficial
----------  -----------   ------   ----------
     0         1.00       98.00          1.00
     1         0.99       98.00          1.01
    10         0.90       98.00          1.10
   100         0.37       98.00          2.70
   500         0.01       98.00        144.77
   700         0.00       98.00       1059.16
  1000         0.00       98.00      20959.16

You can see how the small 1% advantage is amplified over the generations as the beneficial variant spreads through the population. The deleterious mutation disappears.

This is a very simple model, but it is enough to show the advantage a beneficial mutation has and how it can spread through a population. Natural selection is basically compound interest with children.

rossum

 

[grannymh]

The short, and humorous, version is: “If your parents didn’t have any children, then the chances are you won’t either.”

The long version includes mathematics. The process is a bit like compound interest. As an example, take a stable population of 100 organisms; on average each organism has one descendant in the next generation. Now let a beneficial mutation appear with a 1% advantage, so the mutated organism will have on average 1.01 descendants in the next generation and a second mutated organism with a 1% disadvantage. See what happens if we let the population reproduce for one thousand generations:

Generation  Deleterious   Normal   Beneficial
----------  -----------   ------   ----------
     0         1.00       98.00          1.00
     1         0.99       98.00          1.01
    10         0.90       98.00          1.10
   100         0.37       98.00          2.70
   500         0.01       98.00        144.77
   700         0.00       98.00       1059.16
  1000         0.00       98.00      20959.16

You can see how the small 1% advantage is amplified over the generations as the beneficial variant spreads through the population. The deleterious mutation disappears.

This is a very simple model, but it is enough to show the advantage a beneficial mutation has and how it can spread through a population. Natural selection is basically compound interest with children.

rossum

That reminds me of Adam and Eve starting with a population of two, according to the Catholic theistic position…

 

[Charlemagne_III]

This is a very simple model, but it is enough to show the advantage a beneficial mutation has and how it can spread through a population. Natural selection is basically compound interest with children.

But I wasn’t talking about evolution. I was talking about abiogenesis.

How does this model have anything to do with abiogenesis?

 

[rossum]

But I wasn’t talking about evolution. I was talking about abiogenesis.

How does this model have anything to do with abiogenesis?

You asked about natural selection:

Then inform us: if natural selection is neither intelligently designed nor random, what is it?

I answered the question you asked.

So I presume that your modified question reads:

Then inform us: if abiogenesis is neither intelligently designed nor random, what is it?

Abiogenesis is chemistry, with some physics involved as well. Scientists are still working on abiiogenesis, it is an active area of research, so we don’t have all the answers yet. However, we are making progress.

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Abiogenesis is chemistry, with some physics involved as well. Scientists are still working on abiiogenesis, it is an active area of research, so we don’t have all the answers yet. However, we are making progress.

Yes, I know abiogenesis is chemistry. So if abiogenesis was not intelligently designed, and was not subject to natural selection, and was not subject to random permutations, how else could it have happened?

It doesn’t suffice to say “we don’t have all the answers yet.” How would you ever have any of the answers, since none of us were present when abiogenesis happened.

Please don’t say there are experiments being conducted. Those can only be intelligently designed, nor can experiments duplicate the exact conditions of the environment in which abiogenesis happened since those conditions are long gone.

By the way, when you say “we,” do you mean literally “we”? Are you in a project working on abiogenesis? Or are you using the “we” for the scientific community at large?

 

[Peter_Plato]

The example of a caterpillar led me to this example from Google.
extension.berkeley.edu/search/publicCourseSearchDetails.do?method=load&courseId=41591&gclid=CK_w1qLnqL0CFaLm7AodU1cAyg
Epigenetics is the study of heritable changes in gene expression that do not involve changes in the DNA sequence. Epigenetic mechanisms play important roles in development from a fertilized egg into a complex human being, as well as in aging and in various diseases (including cancer).

“Complex human being” is the operative term because while different epigenetic mechanisms keep caterpillars from becoming human, all these types of epigenetics start with an original form of matter existing in time and space. Somehow, the material base for a human results in an extreme, peerless form of rationality. Visually and scientifically, one sees the obvious physical difference between a butterfly creature and a human creature.

So, how does one determine the intellectual difference between other creatures and the one species in which we belong?

The point I was making was that rather than attributing changes in DNA solely to “random” factors like mutation, chemical exposure, etc., it is possible that through DNA integration of epigenetic features, it could be that tiny, imperceptible changes over time to DNA via incorporation of adaptive epigenetic features is what led to diverse DNA in much the same way that a Darwinian argues tiny mutation induced changes selected by natural selection is what led to genetic variation.

The point being that small adaptive epigenetic change gradually integrated into DNA itself could have resulted in the diverse DNA that exists today. Natural selection acting on epigenetic responses to environmental change which then become “folded into” DNA itself could have been responsible for the same kind of diversity currently attributed to “random” external factors or mutation.

 

[grannymh]

The point I was making was that rather than attributing changes in DNA solely to “random” factors like mutation, chemical exposure, etc., it is possible that through DNA integration of epigenetic features, it could be that tiny, imperceptible changes over time to DNA via incorporation of adaptive epigenetic features is what led to diverse DNA in much the same way that a Darwinian argues tiny mutation induced changes selected by natural selection is what led to genetic variation.

The point being that small adaptive epigenetic change gradually integrated into DNA itself could have resulted in the diverse DNA that exists today. Natural selection acting on epigenetic responses to environmental change which then become “folded into” DNA itself could have been responsible for the same kind of diversity currently attributed to “random” external factors or mutation.

Understood.

I simply shifted to real life where DNA exists in time and space which means that there is a material base for the anatomies of both butterflies and humans. What caught my eye was the Berkeley recognition that the person is a “complex human being”. Could it be that the human is considered complex because there is an extreme, peerless form of rationality which does not exist in highly sentient non-human species?

There are plenty of research papers which evaluate animal intelligence. But, in real life, I am interested in how one can determine the intellectual difference between our species and all the other species. Not the amount of intelligence, but rather the difference. I probably should have explained difference as being from different sources. Or different in the intellective tools used – but that is looking at the human creature as if there is something unexplainable in terms of evolving populations.

Perhaps, I asked my question too soon in the discussion. Maybe, I should wait until the discussion leaves the world of plants and porcupines and takes a deeper look at people. While epigenetic mechanisms play important roles in human nature, and we do need to research them, we should also look at the mysterious soul which animates the body made of matter. The unity of soul and body is so profound that we can consider the soul to be the “form” of the body. (Information source. CCC, 364-365; CCC, 355-357; CCC, 1730) Obviously, the Catholic theistic evolutionist will eventually have to deal with the spiritual soul because it is essential to human nature.
I am content to wait. …

 

[edwest2]

Understood.

I simply shifted to real life where DNA exists in time and space which means that there is a material base for the anatomies of both butterflies and humans. What caught my eye was the Berkeley recognition that the person is a “complex human being”. Could it be that the human is considered complex because there is an extreme, peerless form of rationality which does not exist in highly sentient non-human species?

There are plenty of research papers which evaluate animal intelligence. But, in real life, I am interested in how one can determine the intellectual difference between our species and all the other species. Not the amount of intelligence, but rather the difference. I probably should have explained difference as being from different sources. Or different in the intellective tools used – but that is looking at the human creature as if there is something unexplainable in terms of evolving populations.

Perhaps, I asked my question too soon in the discussion. Maybe, I should wait until the discussion leaves the world of plants and porcupines and takes a deeper look at people. While epigenetic mechanisms play important roles in human nature, and we do need to research them, we should also look at the mysterious soul which animates the body made of matter. The unity of soul and body is so profound that we can consider the soul to be the “form” of the body. (Information source. CCC, 364-365; CCC, 355-357; CCC, 1730) Obviously, the Catholic theistic evolutionist will eventually have to deal with the spiritual soul because it is essential to human nature.
I am content to wait. …

Exactly, since man is flesh and spirit. Science, at best, can only help in some ways and since material causes are the predetermined boundary, other elements, like the soul, are missing. This can lead to false conclusions based on the materialist only approach. Catholics need both scientific information and Divine Revelation, and realize that the Teaching Authority of the Church concerns the proper interpretation of Scripture.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Peter_Plato]

Understood.

I simply shifted to real life where DNA exists in time and space which means that there is a material base for the anatomies of both butterflies and humans. What caught my eye was the Berkeley recognition that the person is a “complex human being”. Could it be that the human is considered complex because there is an extreme, peerless form of rationality which does not exist in highly sentient non-human species?

There are plenty of research papers which evaluate animal intelligence. But, in real life, I am interested in how one can determine the intellectual difference between our species and all the other species. Not the amount of intelligence, but rather the difference. I probably should have explained difference as being from different sources. Or different in the intellective tools used – but that is looking at the human creature as if there is something unexplainable in terms of evolving populations.

Perhaps, I asked my question too soon in the discussion. Maybe, I should wait until the discussion leaves the world of plants and porcupines and takes a deeper look at people. While epigenetic mechanisms play important roles in human nature, and we do need to research them, we should also look at the mysterious soul which animates the body made of matter. The unity of soul and body is so profound that we can consider the soul to be the “form” of the body. (Information source. CCC, 364-365; CCC, 355-357; CCC, 1730) Obviously, the Catholic theistic evolutionist will eventually have to deal with the spiritual soul because it is essential to human nature.
I am content to wait. …

There were several researchers (Saltzman at Wisconsin and another at Berkeley) who studied reduced fertility of marmoset monkeys and its correlation to social status. They found that status within a social group could trigger epigenetic changes in females. A female marmoset who was supplanted by a more dominant one in a group would become infertile.

The reason this is interesting is because if social factors, such as position within a group, are sufficient to trigger major physiological changes such as fertility, there is reason for thinking similar sociological conditions might trigger epigenetic changes in humans. If social events, why not mental events? The marmoset female would need to “process” her change in social status physiologically, which then led to a change in biological function. It would seem at least possible that intellectually capable humans could trigger similar physiological changes by, perhaps, prolonged “willfulness” or, alternatively, by coming to a conviction (out of fear, anxiety, worry, etc.) that some event or series of events has or could come about?

Perhaps this is along the lines of speculating whether the “spiritual” aspect of a human being could influence the physical. In terms of discussion of Adam and Eve, could choices or acts trigger epigenetic changes which could then work their way into the structure of DNA?

 

[grannymh]

There were several researchers (Saltzman at Wisconsin and another at Berkeley) who studied reduced fertility of marmoset monkeys and its correlation to social status. They found that status within a social group could trigger epigenetic changes in females. A female marmoset who was supplanted by a more dominant one in a group would become infertile.

And, some years back, there was a study about a group of monkeys who carried a form of HIV. Sorry, no citation because I do not have the evolution analysis textbook with me which referred to this type of study as an example of the evolution model.

Skipping to Intelligent Design …
And I did skip a lot of the discussion because obviously it was in the scientific realm.

Certainly a Catholic theistic evolutionist

should be aware of natural science in and out of Intelligent Design. However, the Catholic needs to recognize that Intelligent Design is actually planted in the material realm of natural science. Unless I missed a post, and please correct me immediately with that post number, not one ID post mentioned that the human person is made in the image of God as taught by Catholicism. Not one post mentioned that the goal of the human person is joy eternal in the presence of the Beatific Vision.

For natural science to operate in a physical/material universe, there has to be a rational order. Describing this essential intelligible order as coming from an Intelligent Designer still means that the intelligible order is part of the material realm of natural science.

Debating the existence of the evolution model is part of a scientific, not theological, approach to how our universe operates. Human nature is an unique unification of *both *the material realm and the spiritual realm. Granted that Intelligent Design does contribute to the knowledge of the material world. Still, in order to be a Catholic theistic evolutionist, one needs to believe in the spiritual world as taught by the Catholic Church which does include human origin, human nature, and the Divinity of Jesus Christ.

 

[rossum]

Yes, I know abiogenesis is chemistry. So if abiogenesis was not intelligently designed, and was not subject to natural selection, and was not subject to random permutations, how else could it have happened?

The usual options are design, law/regularity or chance. In the case of chemistry the relevant choice is obviously law/regularity.

It doesn’t suffice to say “we don’t have all the answers yet.” How would you ever have any of the answers, since none of us were present when abiogenesis happened.

If you find the truth insufficient, then I suggest that you set up a lab and work to help fill the gaps. Nobody alive now was present when Jesus was crucified. Does that mean we can have no answers about that event?

Please don’t say there are experiments being conducted. Those can only be intelligently designed, nor can experiments duplicate the exact conditions of the environment in which abiogenesis happened since those conditions are long gone.

Any scientific result comes with error-bars. The experiments duplicate early conditions to within the known limits of error. That is why experiments are repeated, with slightly different (name removed by moderator)uts, so as to determine how critical those error bars are. There have been many repeats of the Miller-Urey experiment, with slightly different atmospheric compositions, all of which show the formation of amino acids. Different compositions will vary the rate of amino acid formation, but we know that a wide range of different likely early atmospheres result in amino acid formation.

By the way, when you say “we,” do you mean literally “we”? Are you in a project working on abiogenesis? Or are you using the “we” for the scientific community at large?

The scientific community at large.

rossum