Conference on Evolution

[buffalo]

Does that mean you haven’t gotten it? You have 104 posts left to express your understanding of it, before this thread gets shut down.

Yeah, sometimes I am almost convinced then I read something like this:

Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life

…For much of the past 150 years, biology has largely concerned itself with filling in the details of the tree. “For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life,” says Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, France. A few years ago it looked as though the grail was within reach. But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality,” says Bapteste. That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of biology needs to change.

 

[edwest2]

I think you need to understand what the problem here is. You are saying (if I recall correctly) that the universe was literally created within the last 10,000 years. That is not true. You are also saying that humanity literally shares no common ancestry with the rest of the animal kingdom, even primates. That, too, is not true. You are welcome to believe these things. For that matter, you are welcome to believe any falsehoods you want. I don’t care what you personally choose to believe. But if you’re going to insist that believing in these falsehoods is essential to salvation, you’re going to run into problems with anybody possessing even a shred of intellectual integrity (which I hope includes me), because I don’t think there’s anybody out there who is even the slightest bit interested in worshipping or obeying a god who requires us to believe and teach a falsehood as if it were true.

–Mike

Hi Mike,

I never said any of those things. You can check all of my posts. I am not a caricature or cartoon. I am not a YEC or Creationist or whatever label anyone might want to attach.

What I do write is that there is evidence that the “final conclusions” posted by yourself as definitely true are not final. After Pope John Paul II said, evolution is more than a hypothesis, the secular world, clearly for no scientific reason whatsoever, said, Hey. The Church believes in evolution. Not so. And least, not as you apparently think.

I suggest you read Finding Design in Nature, an article written by Cardinal Schoenborn for the New York Times. He was one of the principals involved in putting together the latest Catechism.

I never wrote that believing in this or that regarding evolution was necessary for salvation.

Here is where I stand:

“Any view of evolution that assumes on principle that biological nature is entirely governed by chance and blind laws must be in error.” And “The Church cannot wholeheartedly affirm evolution because evolution as a science itself isn’t wholly firm.”

Both of these from Our Sunday Visitor, for April 19, 2009. A well-known Catholic newspaper.

I have a real passion for studying science. I am following recent developments in nanotechnology, humanoid robotics, advances in genetics and protein manipulation, and the history of technology. But on this subject, I always question dogmatic statements that assert, Hey. No doubt about it, this is what humans are and who or what they’re related to.

You know what? Anyone walking into a court of law is told they will hear the evidence that will prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that this or that happened. Guess what? Here, I’ve been told, many times, there is no proof in science.

Peace,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

“Any view of evolution that assumes on principle that biological nature is entirely governed by chance and blind laws must be in error.” And "The Church cannot wholeheartedly affirm evolution because evolution as a science itself isn’t wholly firm."Both of these from Our Sunday Visitor, for April 19, 2009. A well-known Catholic newspaper.Peace,Ed

Nor can the Church wholeheartedly affirm the theory of gravity, because gravity isn’t wholly firm. We know more about how evolution works that we do about how gravity works.

 

[StAnastasia]

Yeah, sometimes I am almost convinced then I read something like this: Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life

Evidently you either didn’t read the article, or didn’t understand it. The article points out the self-critical nature of science, which never gives up the search for truth, even if it requires revising aspects of how we understand it. Science shares this with theology.

StAnastasia

 

[Maciej]

You are the one who is confused by making distinctions between cladistics and phylogenetics where none exists. A clade (a term first developed by Julian Huxley) is *defined *as a monophyletic group consisting of a common ancestor and all its descendants. A cladogram (also known synonymously as a phylogenetic tree or a phylogeny) defines the evolutionary relationship between clades of organisms. The founder of cladistics, Willi Hennig, called the discipline “Phylogenetic Systematics”. If you must oppose cladistic analysis (or phylogenetic systematics - it’s the same thing) to something, oppose it to numerical taxonomy.

A cladogram or a phylogenetic tree does not explicitly contain the common ancestors. You really ought to know this. You seem to specialise in elementary mistakes and misunderstanding.

Perhaps I can recommend the standard text book on the subject of phylogenetic analysis to you: Joseph Felsenstein, Inferring Phylogenies, Sinauer Associates. You are probably too busy to read it, just as you are too busy to define what you mean by information in the genome.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

I hope you realise that a “phylogenetic tree without common ancestors” is of no value to the evolution controversy. Hennigs cladistic systematics rejected suggestions that organisms without a trait constitute a systematic group. To claim that vertebrates evolved from invertebrates simply means that vertebrates originate from organisms that did not have a spinal cord - this does not point to any specific ancestors. All groups based on absence of traits (Aptera, glabrous, thornless etc.) are not sytematic groups according to Hennig. His cladograms abolished “common ancestors”. Maciej

 

[mpartyka]

Yeah, sometimes I am almost convinced then I read something like this:

Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life

…For much of the past 150 years, biology has largely concerned itself with filling in the details of the tree. “For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life,” says Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, France. A few years ago it looked as though the grail was within reach. But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality,” says Bapteste. That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of biology needs to change.

Yes, but if you actually read the article in full, you’ll see that the statement “Darwin was wrong” applies only at the most basic level of the tree of life – the level at which bacteria and archaea are able to swap genes horizontally in addition to the standard vertical method of direct descent. This basically turns the base of the tree into more of a web. However, once you get to the higher life forms which have no capacity to exchange DNA directly (e.g., plants, animals), then the “tree of life” paradigm takes over in full force.

In short, Darwin was wrong only about bacteria, archaea, and creatures of similar simplicity. For lifeforms any more complex than that, Darwin is still right as rain.

–Mike

 

[mpartyka]

I never said any of those things…I am not a YEC or Creationist or whatever label anyone might want to attach. What I do write is that there is evidence that the “final conclusions” posted by yourself as definitely true are not final…I never wrote that believing in this or that regarding evolution was necessary for salvation.

Then your occasional “preachiness” is ultimately purposeless, isn’t it? After all, if there’s no soteriological reason why a Catholic should reject evolution, there’s no reason to excoriate proponents of evolution for being “anti-God” or “anti-Church”.

As for whatever evidence you’re claiming renders the “final conclusion” of common descent something less than final, I would guess that it pales in comparison to the evidence (of which you are likely ignorant) that establishes common descent. Anyone can deny anything so long as he/she remains ignorant of the evidence establishing a conclusive result. (And I’m not saying that your ignorance is deliberately self-inflicted, by the way – Relics of Eden was only published in 2007, so naturally most people haven’t had an opportunity to read it.)

–Mike

 

[buffalo]

Yes, but if you actually read the article in full, you’ll see that the statement “Darwin was wrong” applies only at the most basic level of the tree of life – the level at which bacteria and archaea are able to swap genes horizontally in addition to the standard vertical method of direct descent. This basically turns the base of the tree into more of a web. However, once you get to the higher life forms which have no capacity to exchange DNA directly (e.g., plants, animals), then the “tree of life” paradigm takes over in full force.

In short, Darwin was wrong only about bacteria, archaea, and creatures of similar simplicity. For lifeforms any more complex than that, Darwin is still right as rain.

–Mike

from the article

…
Hang on, you may be thinking. Microbes might be swapping genes left, right and centre, what does that matter? Surely the stuff we care about - animals and plants - can still be accurately represented by a tree, so what’s the problem?
Well, for a start, biology is the science of life, and to a first approximation life is unicellular. Microbes have been living on Earth for at least 3.8 billion years; multicellular organisms didn’t appear until about 630 million years ago. Even today bacteria, archaea and unicellular eukaryotes make up at least 90 per cent of all known species, and by sheer weight of numbers almost all of the living things on Earth are microbes. It would be perverse to claim that the evolution of life on Earth resembles a tree just because multicellular life evolved that way. “If there is a tree of life, it’s a small anomalous structure growing out of the web of life,” says John Dupré, a philosopher of biology at the University of Exeter, UK.
More fundamentally, recent research suggests that the evolution of animals and plants isn’t exactly tree-like either. “There are problems even in that little corner,” says Dupré. Having uprooted the tree of unicellular life, biologists are now taking their axes to the remaining branches.

 

[StAnastasia]

Well, for a start, biology is the science of life, and to a first approximation life is unicellular. Microbes have been living on Earth for at least 3.8 billion years; multicellular organisms didn’t appear until about 630 million years ago. Even today bacteria, archaea and unicellular eukaryotes make up at least 90 per cent of all known species, and by sheer weight of numbers almost all of the living things on Earth are microbes. It would be perverse to claim that the evolution of life on Earth resembles a tree just because multicellular life evolved that way. “If there is a tree of life, it’s a small anomalous structure growing out of the web of life,” says John Dupré, a philosopher of biology at the University of Exeter, UK.fundamentally, recent research suggests that the evolution of animals and plants isn’t exactly tree-like either. “There are problems even in that little corner,”

says Dupré. Having uprooted the tree of unicellular life, biologists are now taking their axes to the remaining branches.

Buffalo, what is the threat to science in this article?

 

[edwest2]

Then your occasional “preachiness” is ultimately purposeless, isn’t it? After all, if there’s no soteriological reason why a Catholic should reject evolution, there’s no reason to excoriate proponents of evolution for being “anti-God” or “anti-Church”.

As for whatever evidence you’re claiming renders the “final conclusion” of common descent something less than final, I would guess that it pales in comparison to the evidence (of which you are likely ignorant) that establishes common descent. Anyone can deny anything so long as he/she remains ignorant of the evidence establishing a conclusive result. (And I’m not saying that your ignorance is deliberately self-inflicted, by the way – Relics of Eden was only published in 2007, so naturally most people haven’t had an opportunity to read it.)

–Mike

Hi Mike,

Ignorance is the current buzz word, isn’t it? Eliminate “ignorance” and acceptance necessarily follows. I notice you did not comment on the quotes I provided. Apparently, this book you have is your motivating force.

The question I think all Catholics should ask, especially in light of the New Atheism (see the article in Wired magazine) is, is this about something true or something else?

As I see it, the current “concern” is to stamp out ignorance of something called “evolution.” In Communion and Stewardship, the Church recognizes more than one theory of evolution. That’s right.

Instead, I’m seeing a guy running down the street:

Hey you! Mister. Hold up.

Yes?

Do you believe in evolution?

No. Of course not. My Great Grandfather wasn’t an ape.

Oooh. Where do you people get this ignorant nonsense!? Here, read this book. My number’s on the first page. Call me if you have any questions.

I’m also seeing a photograph of a man carrying a sign in Washington, D.C. published in Time magazine: America! Get off your knees!

Of course, people are free to carry signs like that, but atheists have appropriated, for their own use, words like Reason. Just go to the Rally for Reason web site. You’ll see most of their sponsors are atheists and atheist organizations. In case you’re not familiar with this group, they’re the ones who decided to picket outside of the Creation Museum.

You can see it on youtube. They’re afraid that people who go in there are magically transformed into Creationists, if they aren’t Creationists already. They have very vague concerns about what this will do to the country, and the world. I mean people opening a Creation Museum? That’s just so wrong…

So, if you have a point, and the Catholic Church has something to say about it, we’ll see. In the meantime, all I’m seeing is Evolution Evangelism on the internet. You gotta, you just gotta believe it! Believe it! Believe it now! Or what?

Peace,
Ed

 

[mpartyka]

Hang on, you may be thinking. Microbes might be swapping genes left, right and centre, what does that matter? Surely the stuff we care about - animals and plants - can still be accurately represented by a tree, so what’s the problem?

Well, for a start, biology is the science of life, and to a first approximation life is unicellular. Microbes have been living on Earth for at least 3.8 billion years; multicellular organisms didn’t appear until about 630 million years ago. Even today bacteria, archaea and unicellular eukaryotes make up at least 90 per cent of all known species, and by sheer weight of numbers almost all of the living things on Earth are microbes. It would be perverse to claim that the evolution of life on Earth resembles a tree just because multicellular life evolved that way. “If there is a tree of life, it’s a small anomalous structure growing out of the web of life,” says John Dupré, a philosopher of biology at the University of Exeter, UK.

More fundamentally, recent research suggests that the evolution of animals and plants isn’t exactly tree-like either. “There are problems even in that little corner,” says Dupré. Having uprooted the tree of unicellular life, biologists are now taking their axes to the remaining branches.

The most significant part of the article is this one:

…cases of HGT [Horizontal Gene Transfer] in multicellular organisms are coming in thick and fast. HGT has been documented in insects, fish and plants, and a few years ago a piece of snake DNA was found in cows. The most likely agents of this genetic shuffling are viruses, which constantly cut and paste DNA from one genome into another, often across great taxonomic distances. In fact, by some reckonings, 40 to 50 per cent of the human genome consists of DNA imported horizontally by viruses, some of which has taken on vital biological functions (New Scientist, 27 August 2008, p 38). The same is probably true of the genomes of other big animals. “The number of horizontal transfers in animals is not as high as in microbes, but it can be evolutionarily significant,” says Bapteste.

It looks like my statement that HGT only occurs in animals as simple as or simpler than bacteria was incorrect. Viruses are capable of carrying stretches of DNA from one species to another even at the highest levels of complexity. This could throw a wrench into the evidence provided in Relics of Eden if it could be demonstrated that all the mutations commons to humans and chimps were in fact instances of viral HGT rather than inheritance through common descent, but again, just as in the case of two distinct species’ evolving the same mutations, we’re adding up probability upon probability until we end up with an infinitessimal probability that two separate species would have had copies made back and forth between them by viruses – the exact same stretches of DNA in the exact same places, over and over and over again. I honestly don’t know which probability would be smaller – the probability that two distinct species evolved the exact same mutations in the exact same locations, or the probability that viruses copied over the exact same mutations into the exact same locations. Either way is too far-fetched to be seriously contemplated, which means common descent is still the only plausible explanation for the overwhelming majority of genetic similarities among primates.

–Mike

 

[buffalo]

The most significant part of the article is this one:

It looks like my statement that HGT only occurs in animals as simple as or simpler than bacteria was incorrect. Viruses are capable of carrying stretches of DNA from one species to another even at the highest levels of complexity. This could throw a wrench into the evidence provided in Relics of Eden if it could be demonstrated that all the mutations commons to humans and chimps were in fact instances of viral HGT rather than inheritance through common descent, but again, just as in the case of two distinct species’ evolving the same mutations, we’re adding up probability upon probability until we end up with an infinitessimal probability that two separate species would have had copies made back and forth between them by viruses – the exact same stretches of DNA in the exact same places, over and over and over again. I honestly don’t know which probability would be smaller – the probability that two distinct species evolved the exact same mutations in the exact same locations, or the probability that viruses copied over the exact same mutations into the exact same locations. Either way is too far-fetched to be seriously contemplated, which means common descent is still the only plausible explanation for the overwhelming majority of genetic similarities among primates.

–Mike

I was waiting to see if you caught that. As I stated in earlier posts I am willing to wait this one out.

 

[Annie39]

Dear person who goes by StAnastasia (I wish that you would chose another name) I am writing this to bring attention to the fact that YOU are the person who has brought Religion into a scientific discussion. I DO realize that Ed did as well but I most certainly didn’t. I want controvertible scientific proof for evolution or a place at the table a the Pontifical commission on science for the SCIENTISTS who oppose evolution on scientific grounds. I wrote earlier “A note to those who are not frauds but sincerely believe in evolution. Antievolution scientists want to discuss evolution on scientific terms, not on religions terms. I recommend that you hear them out there is no reason to fear.” Someone wrote that Teilhard de Chardin was a good paleontologist. I wonder if he or you could explain to us his other fantastic find the “Peking Man”. OH PLEASE!

 

[Namesake]

Dear person who goes by StAnastasia (I wish that you would chose another name) I am writing this to bring attention to the fact that YOU are the person who has brought Religion into a scientific discussion. I DO realize that Ed did as well but I most certainly didn’t. I want controvertible scientific proof for evolution or a place at the table a the Pontifical commission on science for the SCIENTISTS who oppose evolution on scientific grounds. I wrote earlier “A note to those who are not frauds but sincerely believe in evolution. Antievolution scientists want to discuss evolution on scientific terms, not on religions terms. I recommend that you hear them out there is no reason to fear.” Someone wrote that Teilhard de Chardin was a good paleontologist. I wonder if he or you could explain to us his other fantastic find the “Peking Man”. OH PLEASE!

The fact is that no anti-evolution scientists have been able to demonstrate a scientific basis sound enough to include them in any serious scientific conference. Their anti evolution ideas don’t pass the first tests of science. If they could demonstrate a sound scientific basis they would be welcomed. They haven’t and likely will not be able to do so.

 

[Annie39]

The fact is that no anti-evolution scientists have been able to demonstrate a scientific basis sound enough to include them in any serious scientific conference. Their anti evolution ideas don’t pass the first tests of science. If they could demonstrate a sound scientific basis they would be welcomed. They haven’t and likely will not be able to do so.

I told someone that I had probably posted to this thread for the last time earlier today but…well I just can’t help me self. What you said sir is a bunch of malarkey.

See two can play at the game of “assert something with no proof” The main difference between your assertion and mine is, my assertion is true, yours is not.

 

[StAnastasia]

I want controvertible scientific proof for evolution !

Do you mean you want incontrovertible proof?

 

[Namesake]

I told someone that I had probably posted to this thread for the last time earlier today but…well I just can’t help me self. What you said sir is a bunch of malarkey.

See two can play at the game of “assert something with no proof” The main difference between your assertion and mine is, my assertion is true, yours is not.

It’s just the same as why no astrologers are invited to present at astronomy conferences. I don’t know of any proof because I don’t know how to prove a negative. It’s the same in all of science. Non scientific views aren’t included. Creationism is non science. That doesn’t need to irritate you though.

 

[buffalo]

It’s just the same as why no astrologers are invited to present at astronomy conferences. I don’t know of any proof because I don’t know how to prove a negative. It’s the same in all of science. Non scientific views aren’t included. Creationism is non science. That doesn’t need to irritate you though.

So then you would agree since science is so limited that the Church when searching for the truth should look at all sources?

 

[Namesake]

So then you would agree since science is so limited that the Church when searching for the truth should look at all sources?

No I do not agree. Change it to all legitimate, relevant sources and I will agree.

 

[buffalo]

No I do not agree. Change it to all legitimate, relevant sources and I will agree.

Nope - all sources. She can then in her wisdom reject what is not.