Catholic cardinal says scientists, public schools stifling debate on faith and evolut

[bones_IV]

The article blatantly misrepresents the Cardinals position.

signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20070207-1904-cardinal-evolution.html

 

[marvi43]

This is interesting…

bringyou.to/apologetics/p91.htm

 

[Digitonomy]

The article blatantly misrepresents the Cardinals position.

I disagree. Can you elaborate?

 

[bones_IV]

I disagree. Can you elaborate?

“Humani Generis” defines the critical points of the Church’s position:

1. Creation of the universe “ex nihilo” out of nothing, by God.
2. Special creation of the eternal human soul by God.
3. That Adam and Eve were without sin before the fall, and there was a fall entailing disobedience to God.
4. Monogenism - all men are naturally descended from Adam and Eve, thus inheriting “original sin”.

 

[ribozyme]

“Humani Generis” defines the critical points of the Church’s position:

1. Creation of the universe “ex nihilo” out of nothing, by God.
2. Special creation of the eternal human soul by God.
3. That Adam and Eve were without sin before the fall, and there was a fall entailing disobedience to God.
4. Monogenism - all men are naturally descended from Adam and Eve, thus inheriting “original sin”.

How does anyone defend the notion that *Homo sapiens * are descended from TWO individuals from an extremely small genetic bottleneck? Why is this bottleneck so small? Wouldn’t Adam and Eve be living with other *Homo sapiens *too? Surely members of this ancient Homo sapiens have contemporary progeny, not just the two chosen individuals?

Here is an excerpt of a post from someone who supports the notion of “racial hierarchy”:

I’m mainly making the argument that the science and politics criss-cross so much that its completely wrong to link proponents of scientific evidence (like IQ scores) with racism and elitism. For example, in the 19th century, the biggest “racists” were the scientific liberals who opposed the royalist-church views on the divine right of kings and the equality of man under God**. They used the “Hottentot Venus” and her buttocks and labia and other sexual aspects of Blacks, as well as the skull size differences to argue that humans were so different from one another that they needed separate creations. They could not have all been created in the Garden of Eden. This was the first version of the
debate between polygenists and monogenists. Paul Broca, the famous French neurologist who discovered Broca’s area for speech, was a polygenist and weighed African and European brains at autopsy (as well as upper vs lower class French brains, and French vs German brains) and
supported the idea that the Garden of Eden could not be made to fit such diversity.** When skulls of Blacks and Whites were found in Ancient Egyptian tombs from 3,000 years previously showing the same 100 cubic centimeters that modern (19th century) studies were finding, this supported the separate origins theory. Earlier Voltaire and other supporters of these ideas risked their lives if the conservative forces of Royalty had got ahold of them. These views were seen as “revolutionary” and upsetting the conservative tradition" of the time, as was Charles Darwin and Francis Galton, even though they were from excellent lineages themselves.

If this is polygenism, I am glad that the Catholic Church opposes it.

 

[bones_IV]

How does anyone defend the notion that *Homo sapiens * are descended from TWO individuals from an extremely small genetic bottleneck? Why is this bottleneck so small? Wouldn’t Adam and Eve be living with other *Homo sapiens *too? Surely members of this ancient Homo sapiens have contemporary progeny, not just the two chosen individuals?

Here is an excerpt of a post from someone who supports the notion of “racial hierarchy”:

If this is polygenism, I am glad that the Catholic Church opposes it.

There is evidence for micro evolution (development within species). Macro evolution (one species to another) does not exist. Ratzinger wrote a chapter about it in Truth and Tolerance. When he saw the distinction, it changed his view on evolution. Darwinian evolution was only created for the purpose of finally eliminating God from creation.

 

[ribozyme]

There is evidence for micro evolution (development within species). Macro evolution (one species to another) does not exist. Ratzinger wrote a chapter about it in Truth and Tolerance. When he saw the distinction, it changed his view on evolution. Darwinian evolution was only created for the purpose of finally eliminating God from creation.

Do you think I questioned the evidence of common descent? I accept Darwinian evolution.

I questioned that the lineage of Homo sapiens can to extrapolated backward to a population of two people, thus falsifying monogenism?

Most importantly, I want you to address the racism inherent in some versions of polygenism. That is why I quoted Rushton.

 

[rlg94086]

How does anyone defend the notion that *Homo sapiens *are descended from TWO individuals from an extremely small genetic bottleneck? Why is this bottleneck so small? Wouldn’t Adam and Eve be living with other *Homo sapiens *too? Surely members of this ancient Homo sapiens have contemporary progeny, not just the two chosen individuals?

Well, logic of course. If you believe in evolution, explain to me how it could be any other way. Did several Australopithecus robusti evolve into the same species we call Homo erectus at the same time? I’m not a scientist, but I don’t see how that is statistically probable.

I would understand the idea of a male and female member of *Homo erectus *species giving birth to the first *Homo Sapien *and that *Homo Sapien *then having relations with a *Homo erectus *to create another *Homo Sapien *variant. But, somehow there had to be a first one, right?

 

[ribozyme]

Well, logic of course. If you believe in evolution, explain to me how it could be any other way. Did several Australopithecus robusti evolve into the same species we call Homo erectus at the same time? I’m not a scientist, but I don’t see how that is statistically probable.

I would understand the idea of a male and female member of *Homo erectus *species giving birth to the first *Homo Sapien *and that *Homo Sapien *then having relations with a *Homo erectus *to create another *Homo Sapien *variant. But, somehow there had to be a first one, right?

Speciation occurs within populations, not individuals. Reproductive isolation from the parent species is a prerequisite (so genes from the parent species would not influence the gene pool of the new population). If the members of the new species cannot interbreed with the parent species to produce viable offspring, then speciation has occured.

When a band of *Homo erectus *branched off an original population of Homo erectus and this population of Homo erectus speciated in Homo sapiens, one has to show that this population experienced an extremely small bottleneck. In the context of an extreme version of monogenism, at some point in the history of Homo sapiens the size of this population must have been two: Adam and Eve.

Is there any evidence for this genetic bottleneck?

 

[rlg94086]

Speciation occurs within populations, not individuals. Reproductive isolation from the parent species in a prerequisite (so genes from the parent species would not influence the gene pool of the new population). If the members of the new species cannot interbreed with the parent species to produce viable offspring, then speciation has occured.

Has this been proven somehow by creating a new species, or is this just a theory?

 

[rlg94086]

Speciation occurs within populations, not individuals. Reproductive isolation from the parent species in a prerequisite (so genes from the parent species would not influence the gene pool of the new population). If the members of the new species cannot interbreed with the parent species to produce viable offspring, then speciation has occured.

Wait a minute…I’ve read that a few times and it still isn’t logical. How do members of this new species become a distinct population and reproduce in isolation from the parent species? Did the parent species then create several of the new species spontaneously, and the new species decided to all leave their parents. Doesn’t sound like it’s based on reality.

A gradual transformation would make more sense…or a creation…

 

[ribozyme]

Has this been proven somehow by creating a new species, or is this just a theory?

I am sure there is abundant evidence of speciation that has been observed by scientists. Do yourself a favor and search www.creationontheweb.org and try to find out their opinion on speciation. They will acknowledge that speciation occurs too.

Reread my last post as I have edited it.

 

[rlg94086]

Speciation occurs within populations, not individuals. Reproductive isolation from the parent species is a prerequisite (so genes from the parent species would not influence the gene pool of the new population). If the members of the new species cannot interbreed with the parent species to produce viable offspring, then speciation has occured.

When a band of *Homo erectus *branched off an original population of Homo erectus and this population of Homo erectus speciated in Homo sapiens, one has to show that this population experienced an extremely small bottleneck. In the context of an extreme version of monogenism, at some point in the history of Homo sapiens the size of this population must have been two: Adam and Eve.

Is there any evidence for this genetic bottleneck?

So, in simple terms so a non-scientist can understand it, can you explain how a group speciates? They all transform into this new species at the same time? Does not compute. For DNA to change, I would expect there to be a first mutation into this new DNA. Therefore, there would be one (or siblings) who have this new DNA.

 

[ribozyme]

Speciation occurs within populations, not individuals. Reproductive isolation from the parent species in a prerequisite (so genes from the parent species would not influence the gene pool of the new population). If the members of the new species cannot interbreed with the parent species to produce viable offspring, then speciation has occured.

I meant to say: “Reproductive isolation from the parent species is a prerequisite”

There are several mechanisms for reproductive isolation such as geographical isolation from the parent population, anatomical incompatibility, members of the species exhibit incompatible reproductive behaviors, members of the species cannot produce viable offspring, etc. This is covered in greater depth in my biology textbook… Only the former seems to be plausible for initiating reproductive isolation. The others are responsible for retaining it.

It is plausible to say that the origin of Homo sapiens by divergent evolution was driven by peripatric speciation .

 

[rlg94086]

None of the links you give explain in simple terms how a genetic variation within an isolated species makes a leap to a new species. Nor do they explain how that genetic leap happens simultaneously within a population. I can’t just accept that it happens without being able to make logical sense of it.

I meant to say: “Reproductive isolation from the parent species is a prerequisite”

There are several mechanisms for reproductive isolation such as geographical isolation from the parent population, anatomical incompatibility, members of the species exhibit incompatible reproductive behaviors, members of the species cannot produce viable offspring, etc. This is covered in greater depth in my biology textbook… Only the former seems to be plausible for initiating reproductive isolation. The others are responsible for retaining it.

It is plausible to say that the origin of Homo sapiens by divergent evolution was driven by peripatric speciation .

 

[ribozyme]

None of the links you give explain in simple terms how a genetic variation within an isolated species makes a leap to a new species. Nor do they explain how that genetic leap happens simultaneously within a population. I can’t just accept that it happens without being able to make logical sense of it.

If a new species isolate a different ecological niche from the parent species, it seems reasonable to state that natural selection would favor genotypes that facilitate adaptation to their new ecological niche.

If a population is relatively small (thus representing a small sample of the original homogenous population), the frequency of certain alleles will be different in branched population when compared to the proportion of certain alleles of the parent population. See the founder effect for a better description of this. This is quite influential in peripatric speciation.

For example, I have a jar with 100 marbles and 70 marbles are red and the remainder of the marbles are black. If I choose 10 marbles from this jar, it is unlikely that I will pick 7 red marbles and 3 black marbles. I might pick 6 black marbles and 4 red by chance. This shows that a small sample size prevalence of certain alelles in a new population. The new population does not represent the original population, and further changes can occur the isolate the new population from the original population anatomically, behaviorally, etc.

 

[bones_IV]

Folks all I’m trying to say is that is that it’s unfair one theory gets all the limelight.

 

[Benedictus]

The reason why evolution gets all the limelight is that evolution is a scientific theory. Intelligent design is not.

 

[bones_IV]

The reason why evolution gets all the limelight is that evolution is a scientific theory. Intelligent design is not.

Supposing coincidence as the origin of the universe is just that, a supposition. Atheism is a theological position, not a scientific one. Besides, Schoenborn doesn’t say that there is no micro-evolution. He explicitly says that he doesn’t fit into any of the boxes.

 

[ribozyme]

For example, I have a jar with 100 marbles and 70 marbles are red and the remainder of the marbles are black. If I choose 10 marbles from this jar, it is unlikely that I will pick 7 red marbles and 3 black marbles. I might pick 6 black marbles and 4 red by chance. This shows that a small sample size prevalence of certain alelles in a new population. The new population does not represent the original population, and further changes can occur the isolate the new population from the original population anatomically, behaviorally, etc.

I meant to say that it is unlikely that one will always get 7 red and 3 black most of the time, but this is the likely outcome.

Folks all I’m trying to say is that is that it’s unfair one theory gets all the limelight.

Do you have another testable alternative to replace Darwin’s theory of evolution?