Evidence for Design?

[reggieM]

I know nothing of Myers except Wikipedia says he’s published numerous papers in Nature and other real-world science journals, that his blog is top-ranked, that he’s won the Humanist of the Year and the International Humanist Award, and has an asteroid named in his honor…

You linked to a site from a man who has a lot of hatred for the Catholic Faith:

University of Minnesota professor Paul Z. Myers made good on his pledge to desecrate the Eucharist today. According to his statement on the subject, “I pierced it [the Host] with a rusty nail (I hope Jesus’s tetanus shots are up to date). And then I simply threw it in the trash.”

discoverthefaith.com/2008/07/26/update-on-professor-myers-desecration-of-eucharist/

 

[reggieM]

The Design Argument is not intended to prove the existence of God…

Exactly. It’s an argument against materialism.

 

[reggieM]

Its intended to prove structural design, like that of an architect and builder. But **if **mutation, chance, environment, and natural selection, can account for structural design, then why should we choose design?

That’s an excellent question. When we talk about “structural design” – this includes “functional design” as seen in nature. The question is “if” – as you correctly posed it.

Darwinism does claim that those processes you mentioned account for all of the structural/functional design that we observe in nature.

If true, then that gives greater support for determinism, as well as for Deism and materialism.

 

[grannymh]

Exactly. It’s an argument against materialism.

That is the nail in my coffin.

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

Its intended to prove structural design, like that of an architect and builder. But if mutation, chance, environment, and natural selection, can account for structural design, then why should we choose design?

Is this about the Watchmaker argument?

 

[razredge]

This is a reasonable example of some of the misunderstandings of both “possible” coalescence and some of the retrospective calculations used to estimate the “possible” effective population size of ancient beings which may not have been true human persons.

Granny, pray tell - exactly what ‘current genetic research’ leaves open the opportunity for us to have biological descent from just two individuals.

I’m afraid I can’t see how you pointing at the Human Genome Project is an example of this.

And how come a biochemist like Al doesn’t know of it? He didn’t see that paper?

 

[razredge]

All of that said – that view is far better than the idea that the Church would have to accept polygenism, merely because Darwinian theory proposes that animals became human at some unknowable point in history.

Actually, the Church does have to accept polygenism, at least as it is traditionally understood as biological descent from two individuals.

 

[grannymh]

Actually, the Church does have to accept polygenism, at least as it is traditionally understood as biological descent from two individuals.

Pardon me. But it is monogenism which is the Catholic doctrine that all humanity descended biologically from two, sole, real human parents.

 

[grannymh]

Granny, pray tell - exactly what ‘current genetic research’ leaves open the opportunity for us to have biological descent from just two individuals.

I realize it is very hard to talk about current genetic research without actually seeing a complete published paper along with any supplement data. However, I would think that high school or university lab experiments in biology would follow a similar outline. In addition, in some abstracts on line, there will be a description of the methods used to analyze the available data.

As you saw on the home page of the Human Genome Project, analysis of the available data will continue for many years. The analysis of the data is the base for the conclusion regarding a particular area of the genome.

Even before the Human Genome Project was completed, DNA sequences, human and animal, were conserved in institutions such as GenBank. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genbank/

For example, research was carried out on particular genes for blue eyes. Do not hold me to the details because I am doing this from memory. Research on the chosen sequences resulted in data about where and how the particular genes originated, i.e., adapted with the particular blue color. The conclusions of the particular research were based on the available data from GenBank and also based on the ancestral history of this particular group of blue-eyed people. Two key points. 1. particular genes were chosen for research. 2. recent ancestry was known.

Obviously, the conclusion did not address the issue of ears. Does that mean that ears do not exist?

 

[razredge]

Pardon me. But it is monogenism which is the Catholic doctrine that all humanity descended biologically from two, sole, real human parents.

My mistake, yes monogenism is biological descent from two, sole, human parents.

The Church will inevitably have to accept polygenism (as it is commonly understood - not in terms of ‘spiritual’ first parents and the like).

For example, research was carried out on particular genes for blue eyes. Do not hold me to the details because I am doing this from memory. Research on the chosen sequences resulted in data about where and how the particular genes originated, i.e., adapted with the particular blue color. The conclusions of the particular research were based on the available data from GenBank and also based on the ancestral history of this particular group of blue-eyed people. Two key points. 1. particular genes were chosen for research. 2. recent ancestry was known.

Obviously, the conclusion did not address the issue of ears. Does that mean that ears do not exist?

Hmm, so you think data from the Human Genome Project will allow us to trace our ancestry to just two individuals? Like how we can trace blue eyes to a mutation in a single individual living 10,000 years ago in the Black Sea region?

Ok, but while it may well be possible to trace a mutation to a single individual, trying to trace the multitude of mutations associated with speciation event to a single individual or couple is not going to work as there simply isn’t any indication in the human genome that anything remotely like this happened - as that Biologos article Al linked explains quite well.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Pardon me. But it is monogenism which is the Catholic doctrine that all humanity descended biologically from two, sole, real human parents.

False.The Church requires monogenism of two first humans. Since the metaphysics of humans include both a rational soul and a biological body, theological monogenism is possible while biological polygenism holds. Read Feser.

 

[Al_Moritz]

My mistake, yes monogenism is biological descent from two, sole, human parents.

The Church will inevitably have to accept polygenism (as it is commonly understood - not in terms of ‘spiritual’ first parents and the like).

False. See above.

 

[Al_Moritz]

I realize it is very hard to talk about current genetic research without actually seeing a complete published paper along with any supplement data.

The original citations are included in the Biologos link. You should be able to get the papers if you want.

Grannymh, pardon me, but you simply do not understand the science. If there are three independent lines of evidence, the probability that the conclusions are wrong is close to zero.

Just accept that biological polygenism is a fact, and move on.

 

[Al_Moritz]

The Church will inevitably have to accept polygenism (as it is commonly understood - not in terms of ‘spiritual’ first parents and the like).

This is, by the way, not about ‘spiritual’ first parents but about first humans.*) I already thought I maybe had made that mistake with ‘spiritual’ parents in my own original post but I didn’t.

I had said:
However, given the metaphysics of human nature, theological monogenism, a real Adam and Eve (though not a genetic Adam and Eve) is still possible.

and:

Feser suggests that God gave a soul to two humanoid creatures out of this population, making them human. Here you would have theological monogenism just like the Church teaches.

And I stick by this and by this exact wording.

---

*) As i said in a prior post above: The Church requires monogenism of two first humans. Since the metaphysics of humans include both a rational soul and a biological body, theological monogenism is possible while biological polygenism holds.

 

[tonyrey]

This is, by the way, not about ‘spiritual’ first parents but about first humans.*) I already thought I maybe had made that mistake with ‘spiritual’ parents in my own original post but I didn’t.

I had said:
However, given the metaphysics of human nature, theological monogenism, a real Adam and Eve (though not a genetic Adam and Eve) is still possible.

and:

Feser suggests that God gave a soul to two humanoid creatures out of this population, making them human. Here you would have theological monogenism just like the Church teaches.

And I stick by this and by this exact wording.

---

*) As i said in a prior post above: The Church requires monogenism of two first humans. Since the metaphysics of humans include both a rational soul and a biological body, theological monogenism is possible while biological polygenism holds.

If you wish to discuss monogenism please start another thread. I fail to see how it is related to the topic of evidence for Design…

 

[grannymh]

I’m afraid I can’t see how you pointing at the Human Genome Project is an example of this.

I do not mean to be rude; but, genetic research is not decided over a cup of tea. A researcher uses evidence. As you looked at the home page of the Human Genome Project, you saw that evidence in the form of data about billions of chemical base pairs in human DNA was available to researchers. Each bit of data has a location code.
ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/home.shtml

If you are interested in what the available data looks like, here is another site. genome.ucsc.edu/

This type of technology makes it possible to go back to 20th century research and discover different results.

Where do researchers, interested in human biology, go to find evidence of DNA? An auto repair shop?
(Actually, some research assistants do stop in homes and bars and ask people to spit in a cup.)

Where do researchers go to find “evidence” of events which happened millions of years ago?

 

[Al_Moritz]

If you wish to discuss monogenism please start another thread. I fail to see how it is related to the topic of evidence for Design…

That’s the way discussions go, they branch out. On the web you have to live with that.

 

[grannymh]

Hmm, so you think data from the Human Genome Project will allow us to trace our ancestry to just two individuals? Like how we can trace blue eyes to a mutation in a single individual living 10,000 years ago in the Black Sea region?

First of all, genetic research has demonstrated that blue eyes, brown eyes, and red eyes after a long night, do not come from one mutation in any single individual.

Regarding ancestry, there are companies who will examine personal genomes in order to determine where the ancestors of living people came from. While this is definitely a “buyer beware” situation, some fascinating results are possible.

Ok, but while it may well be possible to trace a mutation to a single individual, trying to trace the multitude of mutations associated with speciation event to a single individual or couple is not going to work as there simply isn’t any indication in the human genome that anything remotely like this happened - as that Biologos article Al linked explains quite well.

I am familiar with some of the research data in that area. What do you want to know?

Do you realize that because of different DNA which makes some people tall and some eyes blue and some eyes brown, that there is no official human genome? What is referred to is actually a genome consisting of different sequences from different people to obtain an average sample. This is why researchers request data with specific characteristics including geographical location.

What would be the geographical location of data used to determine what was happening millions of years ago?

 

[grannymh]

False.The Church requires monogenism of two first humans. Since the metaphysics of humans include both a rational soul and a biological body, theological monogenism is possible while biological polygenism holds. Read Feser.

In Catholic usage, monogenism refers to descent from one breeding pair. Polygenism refers to descent from many different breeding pairs over time.

It is the principle of descent from two founders which links all of humanity to the salvific event of Jesus Christ. Catholicism holds that there was one actual original sin of one actual human person. Original sin is a contracted state which is transmitted by propagation to all descendents of the person who committed it. This is what monogenism refers to. (CCC 396 -421)

 

[grannymh]

The original citations are included in the Biologos link. You should be able to get the papers if you want.

I have two Francisco J. Ayala’s research papers from 1994-95. I have also e-mailed him recently regarding research in that area. The response was in general that he is not currently in that particular area. In a sense, I was aware of that because I subscribe to a service which notifies me when he publishes current research. However, because of professional curtesy, I did inquire.

Grannymh, pardon me, but you simply do not understand the science. If there are three independent lines of evidence, the probability that the conclusions are wrong is close to zero.

Checking my posts, you will find that I have never flat out questioned a conclusion of any research paper regarding the coalescences of particular genes (independent lines of evidence).

I have questioned an interpretation of evidence due to the methods used in the research. For example, I do not question the conclusion regarding the number of alleles of the gene HLA-DRB1 (independent line of evidence) found in Ayala’s research paper often used as opposition to monogenism. I still do not question the conclusion even though the present human population contains a greater number of alleles and there is a difference of opinion among scientists as to what existed before the homo/pan split. I trusted that the 1995 specific conclusions flowed from the presented evidence.

The question I often ask is – Does the presented evidence (independent lines) warrant an extrapolation to an universal exclusion?

It would help this conversation, if you could recall what I have actually said in posts about conclusions, methods, evidence, and the limits of inference. Thank you.