P
Pete_1
Guest
I have not seen the dogma that Eve came from Adam, could you show me a source for it please?
Peace,
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Peace,
C
Camron
Guest
Right, so why are you saying that they are dissenting from the Church? The Church does not require someone to believe in theistic evolution. We have left this part open.For religious beliefs, not for science.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Pope John Paul II said that it’s more than a hypothesis. However, his teaching goes beyond that. Cardinal Shonborn cites the Pope’s words here:Right, so why are you saying that they are dissenting from the Church? The Church does not require someone to believe in theistic evolution. We have left this part open.
“All the observations concerning the development of life lead to a similar conclusion. The evolution of living beings, of which science seeks to determine the stages and to discern the mechanism, presents an internal finality which arouses admiration. This finality which directs beings in a direction for which they are not responsible or in charge, obliges one to suppose a Mind which is its inventor, its creator.”
millerandlevine.com/km/evol/catholic/schonborn-NYTimes.html
Yes, it is not dogma, nor does it need to be. But it is part of John Paul II’s teaching to us. All of it. You are free to ignore it, however.
C
Camron
Guest
But I don’t ignore it. I’ve accepted it.Pope John Paul II said that it’s more than a hypothesis. However, his teaching goes beyond that. Cardinal Shonborn cites the Pope’s words here:
“All the observations concerning the development of life lead to a similar conclusion. The evolution of living beings, of which science seeks to determine the stages and to discern the mechanism, presents an internal finality which arouses admiration. This finality which directs beings in a direction for which they are not responsible or in charge, obliges one to suppose a Mind which is its inventor, its creator.”
millerandlevine.com/km/evol/catholic/schonborn-NYTimes.html
Yes, it is not dogma, nor does it need to be. But it is part of John Paul II’s teaching to us. All of it. You are free to ignore it, however.
It’s you who seems to be in a hurry to have this promulgated to the status of a dogma, which it currently is not. It’s also you who seems to be insisting that dissent from this teaching (which is not a dogma) virtually constitutes as some kind of intrinsic dissent of the Catholic faith. That’s not true either.
You know as well as I do that we simply do not have enough answers at this time to place this teaching to the level of dogma. It would be reckless, without more specific information as to exactly when God breathed a soul into the first man for example, to proclaim this as a dogma too, especially since at this time there does not appear to be anyway to fully reconcile original sin with the life of humanity coming from one man.
I would like to see Pope John Paul II’s words advanced past a sound teaching. On the spiritual level (not scientific level) we have many good possible hypotheses as to how this could be done. But, in regards to the infusion of the soul of man, all we really have right now are good possible hypotheses. In other words, we do not have all facts regarding this.
Perhaps another 100 years will reveal more. But, right now, we simply do not know.
B
buffalo
Guest
** DID THE HUMAN BODY EVOLVE NATURALLY?I have not seen the dogma that Eve came from Adam, could you show me a source for it please?
Peace,
A FORGOTTEN PAPAL DECLARATION **
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
It’s not possible to accept it and still insist it’s a hypothesis.But I don’t ignore it. I’ve accepted it.
I just told you it wasn’t. Is this opposites day where you live?It’s you who seems to be in a hurry to have this promulgated to the status of a dogma,
It’s just dissent from that particular teaching of the Church. Since it isn’t dogma, such dissent isn’t from Catholic faith. It is, as you say, dissent from that particular teaching of the Church.It’s also you who seems to be insisting that dissent from this teaching (which is not a dogma) virtually constitutes as some kind of intrinsic dissent of the Catholic faith.
We merely know it’s true. That should be enough.But, in regards to the infusion of the soul of man, all we really have right now are good possible hypotheses. In other words, we do not have all facts regarding this.
B
buffalo
Guest
Here is what was taught for 500 years or so in our Baltimore Catechism.
Q. 233. Who were the first man and woman?
A. The first man and woman were Adam and Eve.
Q. 234. Are there any persons in the world who are not the descendants of Adam and Eve?
A. There are no persons in the world now, and there never have been any, who are not the descendants of Adam
and Eve, because the whole human race had but one origin.
Q. 235. Do not the differences in color, figure, etc., which we find in distinct races indicate a difference in
first parents?
A. The differences in color, figure, etc., which we find in distinct races do not indicate a difference in first parents, for these differences have been brought about in the lapse of time by other causes, such as climate, habits, etc.
Q. 236. Were Adam and Eve innocent and holy when they came from the hand of God?
A. Adam and Eve were innocent and holy when they came from the hand of God.
Q. 237. What do we mean by saying Adam and Eve “were innocent” when they came from the hand of
God?
A. When we say Adam and Eve “were innocent” when they came from the hand of God we mean they were in the
state of original justice; that is, they were gifted with every virtue and free from every sin.
Q. 238. How was Adam’s body formed?
A. God formed Adam’s body out of the clay of the earth and then breathed into it a living soul.
Q. 239. How was Eve’s body formed?
A. Eve’s body was formed from a rib taken from Adam’s side during a deep sleep which God caused to come
upon him.
Q. 240. Why did God make Eve from one of Adam’s ribs?
A. God made Eve from one of Adam’s ribs to show the close relationship existing between husband and wife in
their marriage union which God then instituted.
Q. 241. Could man’s body be developed from the body of an inferior animal?
A. Man’s body could be developed from the body of an inferior animal if God so willed; but science does not
prove that man’s body was thus formed, while revelation teaches that it was formed directly by God from the clay
of the earth.
Q. 242. Could man’s soul and intelligence be formed by the development of animal life and instinct?
A. Man’s soul could not be formed by the development of animal instinct; for, being entirely spiritual, it must be
created by God, and it is united to the body as soon as the body is prepared to receive it.
Q. 233. Who were the first man and woman?
A. The first man and woman were Adam and Eve.
Q. 234. Are there any persons in the world who are not the descendants of Adam and Eve?
A. There are no persons in the world now, and there never have been any, who are not the descendants of Adam
and Eve, because the whole human race had but one origin.
Q. 235. Do not the differences in color, figure, etc., which we find in distinct races indicate a difference in
first parents?
A. The differences in color, figure, etc., which we find in distinct races do not indicate a difference in first parents, for these differences have been brought about in the lapse of time by other causes, such as climate, habits, etc.
Q. 236. Were Adam and Eve innocent and holy when they came from the hand of God?
A. Adam and Eve were innocent and holy when they came from the hand of God.
Q. 237. What do we mean by saying Adam and Eve “were innocent” when they came from the hand of
God?
A. When we say Adam and Eve “were innocent” when they came from the hand of God we mean they were in the
state of original justice; that is, they were gifted with every virtue and free from every sin.
Q. 238. How was Adam’s body formed?
A. God formed Adam’s body out of the clay of the earth and then breathed into it a living soul.
Q. 239. How was Eve’s body formed?
A. Eve’s body was formed from a rib taken from Adam’s side during a deep sleep which God caused to come
upon him.
Q. 240. Why did God make Eve from one of Adam’s ribs?
A. God made Eve from one of Adam’s ribs to show the close relationship existing between husband and wife in
their marriage union which God then instituted.
Q. 241. Could man’s body be developed from the body of an inferior animal?
A. Man’s body could be developed from the body of an inferior animal if God so willed; but science does not
prove that man’s body was thus formed, while revelation teaches that it was formed directly by God from the clay
of the earth.
Q. 242. Could man’s soul and intelligence be formed by the development of animal life and instinct?
A. Man’s soul could not be formed by the development of animal instinct; for, being entirely spiritual, it must be
created by God, and it is united to the body as soon as the body is prepared to receive it.
M
mapleoak
Guest
And I was taught the same.Here is what was taught for 500 years or so in our Baltimore Catechism.
L
loscampos
Guest
Case for christianity
When we study the Universe, we are driven to the conclusion,
not so much that the Cosmos had a Creator, once
upon a time, as that the Universe was and is permanently
dependent upon a Creator and Governor, Who not only
produced it, once upon a time, but Who is eternally guiding
and controlling it all the time.
It is illogical to argue that every consequent is merely
the effect of its immediate antecedent in the process of
evolution, and that that antecedent was merely the result
of the one which preceded it, and so on ad infinitum. In a
pendent chain of a hundred links, No. 100 may depend on
No. 99, and so on up to No. 1, but that does not mean that
the chain can support itself in mid-air. No. I must be
supported by something.
To argue that the further back we trace the evolutionary
steps the less evidence we find of mind, and that therefore
all reality is merely inorganic matter acted upon by mere
brute force, is like looking at the chain, above mentioned,
through the wrong end of a powerful telescope and thus
reducing the visibility of the support from which it depends,
and then arguing that, when thus regarded, the support
becomes, as a result, practically negligible. A balloon looks
smaller and smaller as it recedes and ultimately it disappears
altogether, but it exists just the same all the
time. By a process of imaginary devolution, or of enfolding
again, in imagination, what has objectively unfolded in
nature—by reducing what really is, to what we suppose
that it once was—by looking, so to speak, through the
reverse end of a mental telescope, it is possible to suppose
that matter gradually evolved into human personality, of
its own accord. But certain implications are involved in
this hypothesis :—
Either: (1) It is implied that human personality,
having emerged out of mere inorganic matter and brute
force—and each successive link in the series of consequents
being supposed to be, in no case, greater than its antecedent
in the series—human personality must consist of nothing
more than mere inorganic matter and mechanical energy ;
that because personality emerged, evolved, unfolded, from
the inorganic sphere, and because no more can possibly
come out of, or evolve from, or be unfolded from, mere
matter and energy (or out of anything else) than was
originally there thus to evolve, unfold, or come out, therefore,
personality is merely matter in motion.
Or, an alternative implication (from the contention that
personality is merely the outcome of the intercommunication
between inorganic matter and mechanical energy) is
that : (2) Although each antecedent is the cause of each
consequent, yet in every step of the process of evolution
more emerged, of its own accord, in the consequent than
there was in the antecedent. This is to assume that there
was at each stage more in the effect than there was in the
cause which produced it. If that be so, then at each stage
something emerged which was not there to emerge : in
other words, something was constantly being produced by
nothing.
Or else (3) the theory that personality emerged out of
the inorganic sphere on its own initiative implies that mere
inorganic matter and mechanical energy must, potentially,
contain life and spirit ; and if everything is what it becomes,
the Universe is spiritual or psychic.
(1) With regard to the first alternative—that there is
nothing more in human personality than mere matter in
motion because the former emerged from the latter—
reply, in the first place, that it is impossible for me to imagine
that there was not more in Shakespeare, in Kelvin, or in
Napoleon, than there is in a donkey—which certainly contains
rather more physical force (more horse-power) and
also more matter than existed in any one of the three great
men whom I have named.
(2) With regard to the second implication : If a Kelvin
were evolved out of mere matter and energy, then at each
step of the process something must have been added by an
agency able to produce such additions.
If it be argued that ever growing complexity of structure
alone made the difference between each lower and each
higher step in the process of development, then the origin
of that ever increasing complexity has to be explained
in terms of causation, rather than in terms of merely becoming.
Nothing becomes different from what it was
without some cause for the change.
Personality cannot be the same as matter and motion,
because neither can be expressed in terms of the other, and
also because both behave quite differently—they
"
observe
"
different “laws.”
Further, each personality is a unity : whereas atoms
and energy are nothing of the kind. Some uniting agency
must be posited for bringing the atoms together to form a
unity ; and the departure of that uniting agency must be
considered to account for the fact that at death the atoms
disperse again. We will deal with this point, however,
under the heading of
"
Materialism."
When we study the Universe, we are driven to the conclusion,
not so much that the Cosmos had a Creator, once
upon a time, as that the Universe was and is permanently
dependent upon a Creator and Governor, Who not only
produced it, once upon a time, but Who is eternally guiding
and controlling it all the time.
It is illogical to argue that every consequent is merely
the effect of its immediate antecedent in the process of
evolution, and that that antecedent was merely the result
of the one which preceded it, and so on ad infinitum. In a
pendent chain of a hundred links, No. 100 may depend on
No. 99, and so on up to No. 1, but that does not mean that
the chain can support itself in mid-air. No. I must be
supported by something.
To argue that the further back we trace the evolutionary
steps the less evidence we find of mind, and that therefore
all reality is merely inorganic matter acted upon by mere
brute force, is like looking at the chain, above mentioned,
through the wrong end of a powerful telescope and thus
reducing the visibility of the support from which it depends,
and then arguing that, when thus regarded, the support
becomes, as a result, practically negligible. A balloon looks
smaller and smaller as it recedes and ultimately it disappears
altogether, but it exists just the same all the
time. By a process of imaginary devolution, or of enfolding
again, in imagination, what has objectively unfolded in
nature—by reducing what really is, to what we suppose
that it once was—by looking, so to speak, through the
reverse end of a mental telescope, it is possible to suppose
that matter gradually evolved into human personality, of
its own accord. But certain implications are involved in
this hypothesis :—
Either: (1) It is implied that human personality,
having emerged out of mere inorganic matter and brute
force—and each successive link in the series of consequents
being supposed to be, in no case, greater than its antecedent
in the series—human personality must consist of nothing
more than mere inorganic matter and mechanical energy ;
that because personality emerged, evolved, unfolded, from
the inorganic sphere, and because no more can possibly
come out of, or evolve from, or be unfolded from, mere
matter and energy (or out of anything else) than was
originally there thus to evolve, unfold, or come out, therefore,
personality is merely matter in motion.
Or, an alternative implication (from the contention that
personality is merely the outcome of the intercommunication
between inorganic matter and mechanical energy) is
that : (2) Although each antecedent is the cause of each
consequent, yet in every step of the process of evolution
more emerged, of its own accord, in the consequent than
there was in the antecedent. This is to assume that there
was at each stage more in the effect than there was in the
cause which produced it. If that be so, then at each stage
something emerged which was not there to emerge : in
other words, something was constantly being produced by
nothing.
Or else (3) the theory that personality emerged out of
the inorganic sphere on its own initiative implies that mere
inorganic matter and mechanical energy must, potentially,
contain life and spirit ; and if everything is what it becomes,
the Universe is spiritual or psychic.
(1) With regard to the first alternative—that there is
nothing more in human personality than mere matter in
motion because the former emerged from the latter—
reply, in the first place, that it is impossible for me to imagine
that there was not more in Shakespeare, in Kelvin, or in
Napoleon, than there is in a donkey—which certainly contains
rather more physical force (more horse-power) and
also more matter than existed in any one of the three great
men whom I have named.
(2) With regard to the second implication : If a Kelvin
were evolved out of mere matter and energy, then at each
step of the process something must have been added by an
agency able to produce such additions.
If it be argued that ever growing complexity of structure
alone made the difference between each lower and each
higher step in the process of development, then the origin
of that ever increasing complexity has to be explained
in terms of causation, rather than in terms of merely becoming.
Nothing becomes different from what it was
without some cause for the change.
Personality cannot be the same as matter and motion,
because neither can be expressed in terms of the other, and
also because both behave quite differently—they
"
observe
"
different “laws.”
Further, each personality is a unity : whereas atoms
and energy are nothing of the kind. Some uniting agency
must be posited for bringing the atoms together to form a
unity ; and the departure of that uniting agency must be
considered to account for the fact that at death the atoms
disperse again. We will deal with this point, however,
under the heading of
"
Materialism."
L
loscampos
Guest
Cont
With regard to the contention that in every evolutionary
step in the process of becoming, more emerges—of its own
accord—in each consequent than existed in its antecedent :
I would say that those who advocate this view resemble
conjurers. The conjurer, feeling that the exigencies of his
sleight-of-hand performance necessitate the production of
several different things, including living organisms, such as
rabbits, out of his top hat, distracts the audience’s attention
from what he is doing, and surreptitiously inserts into
his hat, at intervals, whatever he intends to take out of it
when the convenient moment arrives. In the same kind
of way the materialist, knowing that his philosophy has to
account, somehow, for the emergence from matter in motion,
first of a very rudimentary form of life, then of ever higher
and higher forms of it, until ultimately human personality
emerges, shrewdly introduces into matter, by hypothesis,
whatever he wishes to bring out of it again. He thinks
that if each new addition be sufficiently small, no one will
notice that it is being introduced and, therefore, no awkward
questions will be asked with regard to who or what caused
its introduction.
(.3) The contention that personality exists, in a rudimentary
form, in inorganic matter, and that it necessarily
develops in the course of time, is an irrational belief for
various reasons.
For instance, wherever life is present some measure of
initiative is displayed. If any measure of initiative, if any
freedom of choice, whatever, existed in the electrons or
atoms, however small the amount of the freedom of
initiative might be, chemistry and physics could not possibly
be exact sciences, owing to the incalculable element of freedom
of choice in the behaviour of the electrons or atoms
constantly upsetting all calculations.
Or again, the assumption that a rudimentary measure
of intelligence exists in the electron is absurd, because
intelligence cannot exist without being exercised in some
measure, and in the whole universe electrons act invariably
in precisely the same way, and they co-operate in
such a manner as to produce a single harmonious universe,
an orderly coherent Cosmos. If, in their behaviour, the
electrons were in any degree possessed of intelligence, that
intelligence must be infinite, because, were it not infinite,
some measure of chaos would inevitably be introduced into
the joint action of the myriads of different electrons by the
presence of differences of opinion amongst them
With regard to the contention that in every evolutionary
step in the process of becoming, more emerges—of its own
accord—in each consequent than existed in its antecedent :
I would say that those who advocate this view resemble
conjurers. The conjurer, feeling that the exigencies of his
sleight-of-hand performance necessitate the production of
several different things, including living organisms, such as
rabbits, out of his top hat, distracts the audience’s attention
from what he is doing, and surreptitiously inserts into
his hat, at intervals, whatever he intends to take out of it
when the convenient moment arrives. In the same kind
of way the materialist, knowing that his philosophy has to
account, somehow, for the emergence from matter in motion,
first of a very rudimentary form of life, then of ever higher
and higher forms of it, until ultimately human personality
emerges, shrewdly introduces into matter, by hypothesis,
whatever he wishes to bring out of it again. He thinks
that if each new addition be sufficiently small, no one will
notice that it is being introduced and, therefore, no awkward
questions will be asked with regard to who or what caused
its introduction.
(.3) The contention that personality exists, in a rudimentary
form, in inorganic matter, and that it necessarily
develops in the course of time, is an irrational belief for
various reasons.
For instance, wherever life is present some measure of
initiative is displayed. If any measure of initiative, if any
freedom of choice, whatever, existed in the electrons or
atoms, however small the amount of the freedom of
initiative might be, chemistry and physics could not possibly
be exact sciences, owing to the incalculable element of freedom
of choice in the behaviour of the electrons or atoms
constantly upsetting all calculations.
Or again, the assumption that a rudimentary measure
of intelligence exists in the electron is absurd, because
intelligence cannot exist without being exercised in some
measure, and in the whole universe electrons act invariably
in precisely the same way, and they co-operate in
such a manner as to produce a single harmonious universe,
an orderly coherent Cosmos. If, in their behaviour, the
electrons were in any degree possessed of intelligence, that
intelligence must be infinite, because, were it not infinite,
some measure of chaos would inevitably be introduced into
the joint action of the myriads of different electrons by the
presence of differences of opinion amongst them
B
bnapgh
Guest
I have seen this quote but have not been able to find the original source. Can you help?St. Augustine said it:
Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances,… and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
It is from “De Genesi ad litteram.”
To get it in context, you might try “Ancient Christian Writers”, Newman Press, 1982, volume 41 by J.H. Taylor
Or if you can read Latin, you might check a university for a copy of the original.
To get it in context, you might try “Ancient Christian Writers”, Newman Press, 1982, volume 41 by J.H. Taylor
Or if you can read Latin, you might check a university for a copy of the original.
S
Sideline
Guest
Two points:From the Catholic Encyclopedia: “How far is the theory of evolution based on observed facts? It is understood to be still only an hypothesis.”
newadvent.org/cathen/05654a.htm
Perhaps your 20 years in science puts you above the Church.
- The Catholic Encyclopedia is not the Church. (It is not the majesterium, and it is not the Catechism.)
- “It is understood to be a hypothesis” by whom? Certainly not biologists. Calling evolution a hypothesis is like gravity a hypothesis. The notion is ridiculous.
M
mulligan59
Guest
Now the piece of evidence which convinced me, once and for all, of the reality of evolution was the presence of endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) in the same location in the genome in all the major primate groups, including humans. An ERV is a virus which imbeds itself in the DNA (RNA-to-DNA is done using reverse transcriptase). Typically the virus then takes over the cell’s replication machinery until it dies. However, if something goes “wrong” in the process the DNA will enter the host DNA and stay there. Should this happen in a germline cell, and this be the gamete used for reproduction, this ERV copy will be passed on to the offspring. There are 12 or 13 of these ERVs which have been found so far (geneticists please correct if there are more) in the same location in the genome, and they follow the standard phylogeny among primates.
It can shown that this is strong evidence for common descent by comparing the likelihood of the data among the various models. If one species arose by common descent from another containing the ERV, the likelihood of the ERV being in the same place in the genome is close to one (not exactly one because a deletion event is possible). What if the species were specially created? If the second species were specially created without the ERV, then the ERV would have to become inserted in a germline cell in the exact same spot, and then this would have to become fixated in the population. The likelihood is vanishingly small. What if the second species were specially created with the ERV? We will assume then that the ERV would have some function, that the likelihood that a designer would just stick some random “junk” in the DNA with no function or a deleterious function is zero or close to zero. Now in fact some ERVs do have a useful function, for instance one ERV is associated with placental formation (syncytin). Other ERVs have a deleterious effect, being associated with cancer for instance. But, in syncytin formation, the entire ERV is not associated with syncytin. An ERV consists of three genes, env, gag, and pol, as well as a long-term repeat (LTR). But only the env gene is used for syncytin production. What’s the function of the rest of the ERV? Specifically, what’s the LTR (essentially “junk”), doing there? Why would a designer use specifically an ERV for this purpose? Why not just design an ordinary gene for syncytin?
Creationist responses in the past have typically included the following.
answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/were-retroviruses-created-good which kind of just makes me want to say, get real.
It can shown that this is strong evidence for common descent by comparing the likelihood of the data among the various models. If one species arose by common descent from another containing the ERV, the likelihood of the ERV being in the same place in the genome is close to one (not exactly one because a deletion event is possible). What if the species were specially created? If the second species were specially created without the ERV, then the ERV would have to become inserted in a germline cell in the exact same spot, and then this would have to become fixated in the population. The likelihood is vanishingly small. What if the second species were specially created with the ERV? We will assume then that the ERV would have some function, that the likelihood that a designer would just stick some random “junk” in the DNA with no function or a deleterious function is zero or close to zero. Now in fact some ERVs do have a useful function, for instance one ERV is associated with placental formation (syncytin). Other ERVs have a deleterious effect, being associated with cancer for instance. But, in syncytin formation, the entire ERV is not associated with syncytin. An ERV consists of three genes, env, gag, and pol, as well as a long-term repeat (LTR). But only the env gene is used for syncytin production. What’s the function of the rest of the ERV? Specifically, what’s the LTR (essentially “junk”), doing there? Why would a designer use specifically an ERV for this purpose? Why not just design an ordinary gene for syncytin?
Creationist responses in the past have typically included the following.
- Confusing the issue by citing ERVs not shared between primates, conveniently omitting the fact these are not in the same place in the genome, making the likelihood of independent insertions much greater.
- Confusing the issue by citing insertion hotspots; yes, insertion hotspots make certain regions more likely than others but insertion at the exact same location is still vanishingly unlikely in a genome with 3 billion base pairs.
- Confusing the issue by demanding an explanation for the differences in the genome, not just the similarities. This would be a valid point if the only options were “Biblical” creation versus atheistic, stochastic, undirected evolution. However they are not, and theories of front-loaded and/or directed evolution easily explain the similarities.
- Complaining that I am speculating on what a designer might or might not do. If a designer is brought into the equation, then it is necessary to do this in order to evaluate the evidence scientifically, which means evaluating likelihoods and applying Occam’s razor and parsimony. I can’t prove that angels don’t move the planets and stars around. But I can show their motion is accounted for by natural laws, which is a much more parsimonious explanation than angels, for the hypothesis space is much smaller. Why should angels be moving the planets in the exact same fashion as predicted by Kepler’s Laws, and later more accurately by general relativity? Similar considerations apply here.
answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/were-retroviruses-created-good which kind of just makes me want to say, get real.
S
SeekingCatholic
Guest
The article was written in 1909. In 1909 before modern genetics it may have been reasonable to call evolution only a hypothesis.Two points:
- The Catholic Encyclopedia is not the Church. (It is not the majesterium, and it is not the Catechism.)
- “It is understood to be a hypothesis” by whom? Certainly not biologists. Calling evolution a hypothesis is like gravity a hypothesis. The notion is ridiculous.
S
Sideline
Guest
Ah, I see. Thanks for pointing that out.The article was written in 1909. In 1909 before modern genetics it may have been reasonable to call evolution only a hypothesis.
M
mulligan59
Guest
It can shown that this is strong evidence for common descent by comparing the likelihood of the data among the various models. If one species arose by common descent from another containing the ERV, the likelihood of the ERV being in the same place in the genome is close to one (not exactly one because a deletion event is possible). What if the species were specially created? If the second species were specially created without the ERV, then the ERV would have to become inserted in a germline cell in the exact same spot, and then this would have to become fixated in the population. The likelihood is vanishingly small. What if the second species were specially created with the ERV? We will assume then that the ERV would have some function, that the likelihood that a designer would just stick some random “junk” in the DNA with no function or a deleterious function is zero or close to zero. Now in fact some ERVs do have a useful function, for instance one ERV is associated with placental formation (syncytin). Other ERVs have a deleterious effect, being associated with cancer for instance. But, in syncytin formation, the entire ERV is not associated with syncytin. An ERV consists of three genes, env, gag, and pol, as well as a long-term repeat (LTR). But only the env gene is used for syncytin production. What’s the function of the rest of the ERV? Specifically, what’s the LTR (essentially “junk”), doing there? Why would a designer use specifically an ERV for this purpose? Why not just design an ordinary gene for syncytin?
Creationist responses in the past have typically included the following.
answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/were-retroviruses-created-good which kind of just makes me want to say, get real.
Seeking Catholic,
Sorry to have taken so long to follow-up, the first time I even heard of these ERVs was right here, two days ago. I must say it was nice of you to provide a link to some of the alternative side’s information. I didn’t know about the AIG site either. I glanced at it and it appears to have a lot of interesting stuff.
I really don’t have a new argument, I actually think your case is good, as at least you make an argument which points to facts, explains their logical significance, anticipates challenges, etc. Your introduction is very well done.
It is interesting that you are making an argument for evolution, using probability, as of course this same argument is used (I think powerfully) from the other side. The only answer that evolutionists have to this I think is the hundreds of billions of years supposedly available.
This is a complex subject and I have not been able to more than scratch the surface. Of the common opposition (creationist) arguments you cite, I think your numbers 2 and 4 have validity. Number 2 (or a version of it) was actually suggested to me by my boss, an agnostic, oriental (raised Buddist, not practicing, and its not really “Theistic” anyway), well educated in all aspects of science. (We make a product that uses differential equations to model and optimize microbial metabolic rates given various environmental scenarios to solve for the optimal dissolved oxygen, the application is beleive it or not, wastewater processing). Anyway, we found ourselves waiting at a bank for service and I asked him what he knew about this issue. He said that it is not a meaningful case because many viruses seek and only operate in very specific locations. He pointed to a rash on his forehead, about an inch above his eye. He said this acts up when ever my resistance is down (he had just returned from a long trip to China) but it never spreads to my eye because that spot has different characteristics. He said even in the DNA chain, each location is unique and a virus may seek a preferred spot. Of course similar creatures may be vulnerable to the same virus. Since I beleive that all creatures are more or less specially created, it is possible that they all caught the same virus. Is it not? Of course re number 4), God could do what ever he wanted. We used to not know what the appendicts was for…we learn new things and old assumptions fail. BTW he is open to evolution but not convinced.
Creationist responses in the past have typically included the following.
- Confusing the issue by citing ERVs not shared between primates, conveniently omitting the fact these are not in the same place in the genome, making the likelihood of independent insertions much greater.
- Confusing the issue by citing insertion hotspots; yes, insertion hotspots make certain regions more likely than others but insertion at the exact same location is still vanishingly unlikely in a genome with 3 billion base pairs.
- Confusing the issue by demanding an explanation for the differences in the genome, not just the similarities. This would be a valid point if the only options were “Biblical” creation versus atheistic, stochastic, undirected evolution. However they are not, and theories of front-loaded and/or directed evolution easily explain the similarities.
- Complaining that I am speculating on what a designer might or might not do. If a designer is brought into the equation, then it is necessary to do this in order to evaluate the evidence scientifically, which means evaluating likelihoods and applying Occam’s razor and parsimony. I can’t prove that angels don’t move the planets and stars around. But I can show their motion is accounted for by natural laws, which is a much more parsimonious explanation than angels, for the hypothesis space is much smaller. Why should angels be moving the planets in the exact same fashion as predicted by Kepler’s Laws, and later more accurately by general relativity? Similar considerations apply here.
answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/were-retroviruses-created-good which kind of just makes me want to say, get real.
Seeking Catholic,
Sorry to have taken so long to follow-up, the first time I even heard of these ERVs was right here, two days ago. I must say it was nice of you to provide a link to some of the alternative side’s information. I didn’t know about the AIG site either. I glanced at it and it appears to have a lot of interesting stuff.
I really don’t have a new argument, I actually think your case is good, as at least you make an argument which points to facts, explains their logical significance, anticipates challenges, etc. Your introduction is very well done.
It is interesting that you are making an argument for evolution, using probability, as of course this same argument is used (I think powerfully) from the other side. The only answer that evolutionists have to this I think is the hundreds of billions of years supposedly available.
This is a complex subject and I have not been able to more than scratch the surface. Of the common opposition (creationist) arguments you cite, I think your numbers 2 and 4 have validity. Number 2 (or a version of it) was actually suggested to me by my boss, an agnostic, oriental (raised Buddist, not practicing, and its not really “Theistic” anyway), well educated in all aspects of science. (We make a product that uses differential equations to model and optimize microbial metabolic rates given various environmental scenarios to solve for the optimal dissolved oxygen, the application is beleive it or not, wastewater processing). Anyway, we found ourselves waiting at a bank for service and I asked him what he knew about this issue. He said that it is not a meaningful case because many viruses seek and only operate in very specific locations. He pointed to a rash on his forehead, about an inch above his eye. He said this acts up when ever my resistance is down (he had just returned from a long trip to China) but it never spreads to my eye because that spot has different characteristics. He said even in the DNA chain, each location is unique and a virus may seek a preferred spot. Of course similar creatures may be vulnerable to the same virus. Since I beleive that all creatures are more or less specially created, it is possible that they all caught the same virus. Is it not? Of course re number 4), God could do what ever he wanted. We used to not know what the appendicts was for…we learn new things and old assumptions fail. BTW he is open to evolution but not convinced.
S
SeekingCatholic
Guest
Probability is the only type of argument that can be made for evolution. Science deals in probabilities, not certainties. Probability is likewise the only type of scientific argument which can be made against it. But the typical probabilistic argument can only apply against a completely stochastic process, because that is what is assumed. It does not apply against a front-loaded (a designer “rigs the game” from the beginning) or a directed (a designer “tweaks” the process as it goes along) type of evolutionary process. BTW there aren’t hundreds of billions of years available. The earth, according to the best scientific guess, has only existed for 4.5 billion years.Seeking Catholic,
It is interesting that you are making an argument for evolution, using probability, as of course this same argument is used (I think powerfully) from the other side. The only answer that evolutionists have to this I think is the hundreds of billions of years supposedly available.
Some viruses insert in specific types of locations preferentially. Those are called hotspots. This is well known. There are no known retroviruses which insert in the exact same location however. Scientists would like to find a retrovirus which inserts in the exact same location. This would be extremely useful for genetic modification, as retroviruses are used as “vectors” to carry desirable things in a genome (inserting a gene for instance). However, the best they’ve done so far (the last I looked) is engineer a retrovirus in the lab, for which the frequency of insertion was 300 times what would have been expected through a random process. But bear in mind the genome is 3 billion base pairs long. Thus there is still at best a 1 in 10 million chance of inserting at any specific location. And this is a “best-case” scenario - a retrovirus specifically engineered for insertion site preference.This is a complex subject and I have not been able to more than scratch the surface. Of the common opposition (creationist) arguments you cite, I think your numbers 2 and 4 have validity. Number 2 (or a version of it) was actually suggested to me by my boss, an agnostic, oriental (raised Buddist, not practicing, and its not really “Theistic” anyway), well educated in all aspects of science. … He said that it is not a meaningful case because many viruses seek and only operate in very specific locations. He pointed to a rash on his forehead, about an inch above his eye. He said this acts up when ever my resistance is down (he had just returned from a long trip to China) but it never spreads to my eye because that spot has different characteristics. He said even in the DNA chain, each location is unique and a virus may seek a preferred spot. Of course similar creatures may be vulnerable to the same virus. Since I beleive that all creatures are more or less specially created, it is possible that they all caught the same virus. Is it not?
But not only does the retrovirus need to insert in the same place in the genome, other things need to happen as well. Something needs to go “wrong” with the insertion - because otherwise, the host cell will just die eventually and the insertion will not get passed on. The insertion itself must happen in a germline cell - those used for reproduction - not an ordinary cell. Finally, the insertion needs to become “fixed” in the population - it needs to propagate through the entire population through reproduction. This is itself a highly unlikely event. This is why I say the likelihood of independent insertions at the exact same spot in the genome is vanishingly small.
The likelihood of being passed on through common descent is clearly much greater.
“God could do whatever He wanted” is not a scientific argument. You need to look at what the data is telling you about the likelihood of what He actually did do. Is it likely He created a genome with an embedded retrovirus for syncytin production, but one that mysteriously only uses the env gene, with the gag and pol genes and LTRs just along for the ride somehow; and also just as mysteriously, the retrovirus is in the same location in the genome in primates but in a different place in mice and sheep (in fact, a different retrovirus altogether). Or is the likelihood greater that the reason they are in different locations is due to independent insertion events in mice and sheep, but the reason for being in the same location in the primate group is via common ancestry.Of course re number 4), God could do what ever he wanted. We used to not know what the appendicts was for…we learn new things and old assumptions fail. BTW he is open to evolution but not convinced.
Ironically, the more freedom you give God to act the less likely it makes any particular action of His from a scientific point of view, if a natural explanation is available. I showed this with the example of planets and I’ll do it again with gravity. If I drop a ball and observe it hit the ground, the likelihood of it hitting the ground under standard physics is one. But the likelihood of it hitting the ground if an angel is moving it is much less than one, unless I show a particular reason why the angel would want to move the ball there. The gravity hypothesis has much more predictive and explanatory power than the angel hypothesis.
The appendix is also a problem. Yes, it’s true scientists found a role for the appendix; it is a place where resident flora bacteria can grow and regenerate if some disease wipes them out in the large intestine. But what reason would there be to create Adam with an appendix, if Adam is not going to suffer disease in the first place?
M
mapleoak
Guest
This is a minor point in the argument - whether evolution is a hypothesis or theory. It is not ‘fact’, and care must be taken to ensure that ones ‘conclusions’ about evolution do not contradict Church doctrine. One cannot ignore such writings as the Baltimore Catechism (issued by the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, which most definately did represent the Church in its teachings) nor the doctrines that it is based on.Two points:
- The Catholic Encyclopedia is not the Church. (It is not the majesterium, and it is not the Catechism.)
- “It is understood to be a hypothesis” by whom? Certainly not biologists. Calling evolution a hypothesis is like gravity a hypothesis. The notion is ridiculous.
M
mapleoak
Guest
This is a major theological problem, in that God is not bound by the materialistic and evidential likelihood of doing anything.“God could do whatever He wanted” is not a scientific argument. You need to look at what the data is telling you about the likelihood of what He actually did do.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.