Darwin's Theory of Evolution is not scientific

[o_mlly]

No, I actually just need to do some chores before wifey gets on me.

And now you’ve been niggled by our wannabe moderator. Same advice as for Snarkskii.

nig·gle

ˈniɡəl/

verb

verb: niggle ; 3rd person present: niggles ; past tense: niggled ; past participle: niggled ; gerund or present participle: niggling

1. 1. cause slight but persistent annoyance, discomfort, or anxiety.

 

[o_mlly]

A new species cannot breed with the old species, or does so at significantly reduced effectiveness. That has very little to do with whether a mutation is novel or not.

Unfortunately, I’ve used up my allocated time on CAF reading (and laughing) at the intervening posts. Get back to you next week. Thanks for the answers.

 

[rossum]

So who is correct rossum; you or Pius X11 ?

Evolution-as-theory has certainly not been fully proved, since no scientific theory is ever fully proved. Just ask Newton if his theory of gravity was ever fully proved.

Humani Generis is wrong to imply that scientists think that evolution explains “the origin of all things”. It does explain the origin of species, but it does not explain the origin of hydrogen atoms for instance. Some philosophers may, incorrectly, claim that but not scientists.

rossum

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Then Pope Benedict was wrong as well? I don’t think so.

I don’t think Pope Benedict said exactly the same thing as Pius XII. You may try to interpret it that way, but that would be your private interpretation.

 

[William_Scott]

Don’t take him too seriously, nobody else does.

Thanks o_mlly, I actually find his impeccable faith in things that ain’t so motivational for my weakling faith in Him who is Truth.

 

[buffalo]

Today’s Mass Readings

Twenty-seventh Sunday in Ordinary Time​

Lectionary: 140

Reading 1GN 2:18-24​

The LORD God said: “It is not good for the man to be alone.
I will make a suitable partner for him.”
So the LORD God formed out of the ground
various wild animals and various birds of the air,
and he brought them to the man to see what he would call them;
**whatever the man called each of them would be its name. **
The man gave names to all the cattle,
all the birds of the air, and all wild animals;
but none proved to be the suitable partner for the man.

So the LORD God cast a deep sleep on the man,
and while he was asleep,
he took out one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh.
The LORD God then built up into a woman the rib
that he had taken from the man.
When he brought her to the man, the man said:
“This one, at last, is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
this one shall be called 'woman, ’
for out of ‘her man’ this one has been taken.”
That is why a man leaves his father and mother
and clings to his wife,
and the two of them become one flesh.

 

[edwest]

Thank you, buffalo.

 

[buffalo]

Thank you, buffalo.

Over 1 Billion people heard this today.

 

[mVitus]

rossum is correct. Pius XII was wrong.

I’d actually say they’re both right. Science has advanced quite a bit from when Humani Generis was written. So Pope Pius XII was looking at something, that while the best scientific explanation at the time, had less evidence.

 

[o_mlly]

A new species cannot breed with the old species, or does so at significantly reduced effectiveness. That has very little to do with whether a mutation is novel or not.

Yes, I understand. To clarify the definitions of “specie” and “speciation” from another thread, are these acceptable?

Specie: a group of closely related organisms whose DNA are very similar to each other and are usually capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.

Speciation: the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution.

Evidence of a new and distinct specie is a change in the DNA of the subsequent population with evidence that the subsequent population cannot successfully breed with the previous population.

 

[rossum]

Yes, I understand. To clarify the definitions of “specie” and “speciation” from another thread, are these acceptable?

Specie : a group of closely related organisms whose DNA are very similar to each other and are usually capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.

Speciation : the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution.

Evidence of a new and distinct specie is a change in the DNA of the subsequent population with evidence that the subsequent population cannot successfully breed with the previous population.

Almost correct. Horses and donkeys can breed to produce living mules, but mules are sterile. Lions and tigers can interbreed to produce ligers or tigons, however the male cross-breeds are sterile while the females are fertile. Hence my phrasing of “significantly reduced effectiveness”. Horses and donkeys can breed together, but at 0% effectiveness. Lions and tigers do so at 50% effectiveness.

You need to make some allowance for when species are recently separated, and so retain some reduced ability to interbreed.

Humans have one less chromosome that our closest relatives, chimps and gorillas. Human chromosome 2 is a fusion of two different chromosomes in our ancestors, which are still separate in chimps and gorillas. That change would probably have reduced the efficiency of interbreeding by 50%. Two separate chromosomes have a 50% chance of lining up in the wrong order on the enlarged double chromosome, resulting in a very early failure of any pregnancy. Lining up in the right order would have resulted in a viable pregnancy.

HTH

rossum

 

[buffalo]

Science has advanced quite a bit from when Humani Generis was written.

Indeed it has. The tree of life has fallen. Junk DNA no more. Epigenetics, sophisticated DNA error correction, DNA passwords, DNA language can be read forward, backwards and has layers, ATP Synthase motor, Cell factories and complexity, Cell transport mechanisms, no selfish gene, genetic entropy, HGT, anti-bacterial resistance built in, protein folding, etc…

There might have been much stronger language in Humani Generis had all this been know by the Pope.

 

[edwest]

As time has passed, the Church still acknowledges continuity with Humani Generis.

From Communion and Stewardship

“64. Pope John Paul II stated some years ago that “new knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge”(“Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution”1996). In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis ), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. Mainly concerned with evolution as it “involves the question of man,” however, Pope John Paul’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms.”

 

[LeafByNiggle]

In acknowledging continuity with Humani Generis, this reference also pulls back a little with a qualification that only certain beliefs in evolution are disallowed - namely, those that claim that evolution denies God’s “truly causal role” in the development of life, i.e. some sort of neo-Darwinism. This reference you cited focuses on the philosophy and theology of life. It actually says nothing about the core premise of evolution as a scientific theory. The fact that evolution is compatible with faith is demonstrated by the number of faithful followers of Jesus who pray to God in thanksgiving for the gift of life, which still holding the scientific truths of evolution.

I would go further. The insistence of those who say that one cannot have faith in the Church and believe in evolution has driven some people from the faith. I know of at least one such person who is posting in another thread. He has left the Church because he is disillusioned over what he perceives is the Church’s rejection of science, in particular, evolution. Where he got that impression I don’t know. I have been doing my best to reassure him that this is not the case and that he should consider coming back to the Church. You should consider the consequences of your stand on situations like this.

 

[mVitus]

The insistence of those who say that one cannot have faith in the Church and believe in evolution has driven some people from the faith.

And for me, that’s why it’s important to make clear evolution and faith are compatible. And for those that disagree with it, fine, but don’t make the mistake of saying it’s incompatible.
There are misconceptions that have seeped in about Catholicism based on Fundamentalism. And I for one hate that. And I hate when people wrongly say it’s either evolution or God. It puts forth a wall, a hurdle in the path to conversion for those looking in. It lies to them and says they can’t accept something the Church allows us to accept. It is a deceit. A scandal. To say evolution is wrong is one thing. But to say evolution is heretical is a far different one that drives people from God because to say that preaches a false version of truth. And when a person rejects God because they were told a falsehood about Him, who is at fault?

 

[o_mlly]

Almost correct. Horses and donkeys can breed to produce living mules, but mules are sterile. Lions and tigers can interbreed to produce ligers or tigons, however the male cross-breeds are sterile while the females are fertile. Hence my phrasing of “significantly reduced effectiveness”. Horses and donkeys can breed together, but at 0% effectiveness. Lions and tigers do so at 50% effectiveness.

I see. Revised definition for “specie” follows:

Specie : a group of closely related organisms whose DNA are very similar to each other and are capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. A new specie may interbreed with its progenitors but only with significantly reduced effectiveness*.

• Horses and donkeys can breed to produce living mules, but mules are sterile. Lions and tigers can interbreed to produce ligers or tigons, however the male cross-breeds are sterile while the females are fertile. Hence my phrasing of “significantly reduced effectiveness”. Horses and donkeys can breed together, but at 0% effectiveness. Lions and tigers do so at 50% effectiveness.

OK?

With regard to “speciation”, I am unclear as to the exception you note: “That change would probably have reduced the efficiency of interbreeding by 50%.” Did you mean “intra-breeding”, that is, breeding between the recently separated specie and its immediate progenitor specie?

 

[Techno2000]

rossum:

Almost correct. Horses and donkeys can breed to produce living mules, but mules are sterile. Lions and tigers can interbreed to produce ligers or tigons, however the male cross-breeds are sterile while the females are fertile. Hence my phrasing of “significantly reduced effectiveness”. Horses and donkeys can breed together, but at 0% effectiveness. Lions and tigers do so at 50% effectiveness.

I see. Revised definition for “specie” follows:

Specie : a group of closely related organisms whose DNA are very similar to each other and are capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. A new specie may interbreed with its progenitors but only with significantly reduced effectiveness*.

• Horses and donkeys can breed to produce living mules, but mules are sterile. Lions and tigers can interbreed to produce ligers or tigons, however the male cross-breeds are sterile while the females are fertile. Hence my phrasing of “significantly reduced effectiveness”. Horses and donkeys can breed together, but at 0% effectiveness. Lions and tigers do so at 50% effectiveness.

OK?

With regard to “speciation”, I am unclear as to the exception you note: “That change would probably have reduced the efficiency of interbreeding by 50%.” Did you mean “intra-breeding”, that is, breeding between the recently separated specie and its immediate progenitor specie?

Tigons and Ligers

The lines between two species are traditionally drawn when they cannot reproduce successfully. These images of a male lion, tiger, “tigon,” and “liger” seem to confuse the issue. Although they rarely meet in the wild, lions and tigers are still so closely related that they are able to interbreed, and in captivity they occasionally do. But successful interbreeding is the key, and the hybrid offspring are usually sterile and short-lived.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_02.html

 

[edwest]

I would like to get your thoughts about this:

Opinion | Finding Design in Nature - The New York Times

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I read the article. I can honestly say that I agree with all of it. And I believe in the science of evolution, which I don’t think is contradicted by Christoph Schönborn in this article.

 

[Uriel1]

Many scientists and lay followers of science deny the possibility of God and the idea of there being a creator; they are certain that there is no intelligent design behind all that we behold, and all that supports life on earth.

Scientists will tell you that they don’t accept anything until they can prove it, and yet most scientists at the end of the 20th century believed in the “big bang,” an idea that has not been proved, and many also believe in abiogenesis, another idea which all comers have failed to demonstrate since Miller-Urey tried and failed in 1952-3.

DNA - Humanity isolated DNA just before 1870, and finally identified its structure in 1953. We now understand DNA as a complex information digital coding system, two levels higher than our marvellous current binary computer technology. This coding system controls and transmits the design of all living things with which we share this world.

Physics - We tell ourselves that we understand much of the laws of physics, knowing that we need to place "constants" in the mathematics to make the mathematical proofs work.

Biology - We are astonished and delighted by the diversity and wonder of life on earth, and the interrelationships between systems and organisms.

Atheism - Those (scientists and others) who claim not to accept anything until they can prove it, yet claim to be 100% confident that no intelligent force, no God, was behind the universe, behind the DNA, nor the physics, nor the biology, are called atheists.

Atheists cannot prove that life started without a creator. Yet without proof, or hope of proof, they deny God and try to persuade others that there is no God. ___________________________________________________________________________________________

Psalm (13) 14 was written 3000 years ago and dealt with the same questions.

"The Fool has said in his heart: There is no God, They are corrupt, and are become abominable in their ways: there is none that does good, no not one. 2 The Lord has looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there are any that understand and seek God… 6 For the Lord is in the just generation: you have confounded the counsel of the poor man, but the Lord is his hope. 7 Who shall give out of Sion the salvation of Israel? when the Lord has turned away the captivity of his people, Jacob shall rejoice and Israel shall be glad." Psalm 13 (DRA ) / Psalm 14 ( KJV)

So, for 3000 years since King David, there have been those saying there is no Creator God, and humanity has swung between seeking and denying Him.

A belief in no God is an unscientific one; a disbelief based only on philosophy, while believers’ knowledge of God is based on philosophy, faith, and the gift of God’s Holy Spirit.

Like David, you can believe in the Creator or deny Him; the choice is yours, but don’t claim science is with you