W
wasmit
Guest
lol, what the hell is this?
- Status
R
ricmat
Guest
H
hecd2
Guest
OK - let’s take a step back. A gene is a stretch of DNA that is translated by the machinery in the cell into a protein. We each have two copies of each gene in each cell in our bodies - one inherited from our father and one from our mother. Not every copy of a gene is absolutely identical - some are slightly different from others, and different versions are called alleles. Now, two people together can have, at most, four different alleles for a gene (each person can have two different alleles times two people equals four). Those two people, if they have children, pass on a maximum of four alleles to the next generation - they would need to have at least two children, and statistically more, since each child carries a maximum of two different alleles. The child has one allele for each gene from its father selected randomly as part of the reproductive process from the two alleles that the father carries, and similarly for the mother. If an allele fails to be passed on, it dies out and becomes extinct.
So you can see that if humans have two sole ancestors, we should expect a maximum of four different alleles for any gene in the human population. But by analysing the DNA of tens of thousands of people around the world, 297+ different alleles of the gene called DRB1 have been found. Now, new alleles can be created by a copying mistake, to form a new version of the gene, a new allele that becomes fixed in the human population, but the rate at which that happens is known, and that, along with the mathematical rules that dictate the probability of new alleles fixing and the size of population needed to sustain a certain number of alleles without them going extinct allows us to determine an estimate for the size of ancestral population needed to create and sustain 297+ alleles of a single gene. That population is several thousand breeding individuals; given the number of different versions of DRB1 and other genes, humans cannot have passed through a bottleneck of just two individuals.
But there’s more. Imagine that the gene is like a long poem that is copied and recopied. Imagine that a single error creeps into one copy - now there are two slightly different versions of the poem (two alleles if you like). Those who copy the new version, also copy the mistake it contains, and over time, that mistake has more added to it and so on. Meantime, another new mistake arises in the original unchanged version giving rise to a new family of versions. The alleles in human genes are like that, divided into families that originate with the initial error or mutation that modified them from the ancestral form. In fact we share a number of these families of alleles with chimpanzees and this shows that the original mutation that gives rise to those particular family of alleles pre-dates the divergence of the chimp and human lineages.
Humans are not just the descendants of apes - biologically, humans are apes. Humans, chimps (and bonobos), gorillas and orang-utans share a common ancestor 20 million years ago. Soon after that, the ancestors of orang-utans and the ancestors of the rest diverged. About 12 million years ago, gorillas diverged from the chimp/human line, and about 6-7 million years ago the human and chimp lineages diverged. Geographic and ecological factors certainly contributed to the divergence of lineages.
Chimps, gorillas and orangutans are genetically as different from the common ancestor as humans are.
No, I’m busy with other things.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
R
rad314
Guest
But of course! I thought I freely admitted that. All of my thinking was prompted by questions posed or implied by post #1 and the title of this thread. There have been, shall we say, several posts by people determined to repeat their opinions inflexibly without giving any attention, careful or otherwise, to others inflexibly repeating theirs. All I was trying to do was suggest an explanation that might allow rapprochement between evolutionist dogma and Church teaching.
H
hecd2
Guest
Not sure what you mean by the “origin” of the human genome pre-dating the chimp/human divergence. There is no single origin like this unless we go right back to the origin of life on earth. Chimps and humans did have a common ancestor but the common ancestor doesn’t represent the origin of the human genome.
Well, the common ancestor of humans and chimps would have been an ape-like creature, but somewhat unlike both chimps and humans. Chimps have evolved from the common ancestor too. None of the papers describe a common ancestor, but, by comparing with other creatures it is possible to reconstruct the common ancestral genome, or at least an estimate of it. The word you need here is genome, the DNA code in an individual - genomics is the study of genomes and genomic is the adjective from genome.
The common ancestor has a genome, which, through a different sets of mutations, gives rise to the genomes of humans and chimps. It’s the same poem in each species, but with different copying mistakes.
There isn’ t a split in the genome - two separate populations of descendants from the common ancestor diverge by accumulating different copying errors in their genomes
A branch of a tree with twigs that fork - each fork is a species divergence. I realise that I made a mistake with the timing of the divergences in my previous post - the orang-utan divergence is estimated to be about 14 million years ago and the gorilla about 9 million.
A period of reduced total population - reduced population sizes leave evidence on the genome - the minimum bottleneck in human evolution was a few thousand breeding individuals.
Yes - although, as we have seen, any population of mammals carries some variation in its genomes - or they’d be all clones.
Yes.
Not in all details - but they all show that the minimum population in the human lineage has been hugely more than two individuals.
No - the bottleneck, to the extent that it occurred, occurred in Africa before the expansion to other continents - after that there was human population expansion.
Yes.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
N
Namesake
Guest
It is so important that we understand that that bottleneck didn’t cause our extinction. Such bottlenecks almost always cause extinction. Why we survived that is a very interesting question.
H
hecd2
Guest
I am not competent to comment on the infusion of souls, but from a genetic point of view it’s extremely likely that if you go back to the origins of modern human behaviour (from archaeology), then each human would either have been the ancestor of all humans alive today, or none. That is beyond the so-called ACA point. So there is no biological difficulty with imagining a couple, call them Adam and Eve, who are ancestors of us all. However, there would have been many other individuals, you call them PHOMS, living at the same time as Adam and Eve, who would also be ancestors of all of us.
So according to your hypothesis, the PHOMs wouldn’t have become extinct - biologically and genetically they are still amongst us - but, in technical parlance, an immortal soul is dominant and so mortal souls in humans would have become extinct.
Nice idea, except that you have to be happy with a period in history when the human population consisted of a mixture of those with immortal and mortal souls - and you have to accept the idea that humans with mortal and immortal souls lived together as partners for many many generations. If immortally ensouled humans are so different from other animals, don’t you think that this presents a difficulty?
Alec
evolutionpages.com
G
grannymh
Guest
R
reggieM
Guest
Ed - I’m grateful that you survived that era with your faith still strong. You provide an important witness of what really happened back then, with the voice of experience that many people do not understand. I’ve seen a lot of damage done to our Catholic community, as I’m sure you have, with the substitution of materialistic and humanistic concerns for the supernatural mysteries which are at the core of the revelation of Christ. Science is held up as the supreme authority and the Magisterium has to bow in worship to that.
Very well and clearly said - especially the last clause. Prayer life exchanged for sex life. That is so true, and we can see the results.
Indeed, that is right. I’ve learned to have a lot more compassion for the vulnerable souls who embraced the lies because they thought they were being faithful.
That’s a message that needs to be told - in season or out of season.
Thanks again for your apostolic spirit. God bless.
B
buffalo
Guest
B
buffalo
Guest
It is so important to show what the Church has taught and believed with documentation.
Once we know this then we are confronted by a choice. A choice many do not want to make.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Alec, is the timing of the genetic bottleneck known precisely enough to determine what geographically isolating conditions in Africa might have caused this reduction in population? In other words, do we know within ten or fifty or a hundred thousand years when it happened, and can we connect it to some identifiable series of geological or climatological events?
StAnastasia
R
reggieM
Guest
That was interesting, thanks. It definitely makes sense. A vacuum cannot have any matter in it – and therefore it can’t be studied or even recognized.
G
grannymh
Guest
Dear reggieM,
A bunch of ideas relating to what you and Ed and others are posting keeps rolling around in my head – only I can’t connect all the elements. So I’ll present some questions and then run for cover.
- What happens when the concepts of scientism affects ordinary life? General dictionary definition: The collection of attitudes and practices considered typical of scientists.
In real life, the Catholic on the street doesn’t greet a friend with – What about those genomes. They sure had a great mutation game plan. Made those alleles disappear right off the strand. So what exactly is it about scientism that is affecting society? - Could the recognition that there is something beyond the realm of human sensory experience bring a better balance to ordinary life? If so, I could stop posting that I flat out refuse to be considered in the same category as a rock or a robot.
- Is the idea that everything must have empirical data in order to be accepted chipping away at the “mysteries” of the Catholic Faith? Does the Eucharist become a what instead of a Who?
- What I am seeing is that there is a philosophical fallout from scientism which has affected the ordinary Catholic so that attendance at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass has dropped. Most Catholics believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. But, it seems to me that this belief is slipping from a total belief in something that is beyond the realm of scientific explanation. There is a maybe it is a symbol or remembrance. This “maybe” leads to well maybe I don’t need to attend the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. I’m sure most people here have heard this saying: If people truly believed that God was present in the Eucharist, there would be standing room only in every church.
Blessings,
granny
All human life, especially the young, is delightful.
Fight FOCA
R
ricmat
Guest
Actually, my point to StA was that her enthusiasm over Catholic colleges finally teaching that “a vacuum can exist, contrary to what some priest taught previously” was not well founded, even by the science she has so much faith in.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Grannymh, there is no contradiction here. People in my parish believe in Christ’s real presence in the Eucharist, and they also discuss the conclusions of science, including discoveries evolutionary biology. It’s a well-educated congregation in a university town.
StAnastasia
E
edwest2
Guest
In the 1960s, the Catholic community was fully alive. It was reflected in the TV shows and movies. Most of them. The respect we were taught to have for ourselves and others was made manifest every day. Now we had robberies and murders and all the rest, but the bond between the Church and the community was strong. Stores were closed on Sundays. Nativities were placed in front of City Halls without lawsuits.
We lived lives that were properly restrained by our Catholic tenets. Do right, not wrong. The relationship between the sexes meant no sex before marriage. And marriage was a partnership.
Science was meant to solve problems. It did not weigh heavily on how people lived their lives. There was a level of trust between people and those who had authority over them. But all aspects of the social order were twisted by those who wanted to do differently and science, whether it wanted to or not, soon became an accomplice.
A man named Kinsey published a report about human sexuality in the 1950s. It was badly done and inaccurate, but it was presented as the truth. In 1960, the Birth Control Pill became the means by which No-Fault Fornication could proceed in society.
In 1968, Humanae Vitae was published, telling Catholics of the risks to family life if artificial contraception was used. A Hippie-Science collusion convinced some people that Free Love, sex with anyone, was OK. The Hippies also said: I don’t need no piece of paper to live with my old lady.
Even science fiction writers were talking about a future where marriages would be limited to a relatively short time period, with the option for renewal.
Scientism, based on nothing more than the worship of the human mind, has created a new type of fiction based on elaborate, but false, “explanations.” Rape is OK. Incest is OK. Underage sex is OK. Prostitution? Legalize it. Smoking marijuana? Legalize it.
So-called experts simply reach into their imaginations and provide answers to sweep away taboos and guilt. Modesty, shame, guilt? What’s that?
I watched as cigarette company executives, when asked if cigarettes were addictive, tell Congress, No. They had scientific, and legal, explanations.
A few years ago, I watched a TV special that explained the plagues unleashed by God against Egypt. They had “explained” them all, scientifically.
A few years ago, Jesus’ tomb was found, along with his burial box. A fraud. The finder is being investigated.
Science has been used for years to help advertisers, and politicians, sell ideas. Elaborate and expensive research was done to get you to say Yes to whatever idea, without regard to its rightness or wrongness. This was called “engineering consent.”
Over the past 40 years, movies and TV shows have gradually become sicker and twisted. Fornication is the ‘norm’ in movies. It seems Jennifer Aniston has made a career out of doing fornication movies. The average character on TV is very to extremely dysfunctional.
And behind it all, science, divorced from any sense of right and wrong, out of any sense of discernment, has created a twisted vision of living that people medidate on for hours whenever they turn on the TV or go to the movies.
The secular world was poisoned by experts. Guilt was abolished, along with sin. “Do your own thing” led to selfishness, greed and isolation. Love became devalued. Children a burden. Soon, there was No-Fault Pregnancy, No-Fault Divorce and No-Fault Living.
The atheist-scientist partnership has led to a world where people are more isolated, and less trusting of each other. Scientism tells man that he knows, or will soon know, everything worth knowing. He will order society. He will decide.
The fact of Jesus Christ becomes a story. As Pope Benedict said, Today, religion counts for nothing. Man wants to do it his way and nobody is going to tell him what to do. This leads to anarchy, since people cannot agree when there are no rules.
Science, through scientism, becomes the new dictator. Some people want Science to lead them, to absolve them of “primitive” ideas like sin and guilt, and to bring them to an age where no matter how badly they abuse themselves and their bodies, science will heal them.
Scientism is the new Marxism. Society, some think, needs to be ordered around a Scientific Elite. But, the problem, the eternal problem, will always be that evidence can be manipulated, or created, and lies can be presented as facts, all justified by a desire to create a greater good.
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
Peace,
Ed
We lived lives that were properly restrained by our Catholic tenets. Do right, not wrong. The relationship between the sexes meant no sex before marriage. And marriage was a partnership.
Science was meant to solve problems. It did not weigh heavily on how people lived their lives. There was a level of trust between people and those who had authority over them. But all aspects of the social order were twisted by those who wanted to do differently and science, whether it wanted to or not, soon became an accomplice.
A man named Kinsey published a report about human sexuality in the 1950s. It was badly done and inaccurate, but it was presented as the truth. In 1960, the Birth Control Pill became the means by which No-Fault Fornication could proceed in society.
In 1968, Humanae Vitae was published, telling Catholics of the risks to family life if artificial contraception was used. A Hippie-Science collusion convinced some people that Free Love, sex with anyone, was OK. The Hippies also said: I don’t need no piece of paper to live with my old lady.
Even science fiction writers were talking about a future where marriages would be limited to a relatively short time period, with the option for renewal.
Scientism, based on nothing more than the worship of the human mind, has created a new type of fiction based on elaborate, but false, “explanations.” Rape is OK. Incest is OK. Underage sex is OK. Prostitution? Legalize it. Smoking marijuana? Legalize it.
So-called experts simply reach into their imaginations and provide answers to sweep away taboos and guilt. Modesty, shame, guilt? What’s that?
I watched as cigarette company executives, when asked if cigarettes were addictive, tell Congress, No. They had scientific, and legal, explanations.
A few years ago, I watched a TV special that explained the plagues unleashed by God against Egypt. They had “explained” them all, scientifically.
A few years ago, Jesus’ tomb was found, along with his burial box. A fraud. The finder is being investigated.
Science has been used for years to help advertisers, and politicians, sell ideas. Elaborate and expensive research was done to get you to say Yes to whatever idea, without regard to its rightness or wrongness. This was called “engineering consent.”
Over the past 40 years, movies and TV shows have gradually become sicker and twisted. Fornication is the ‘norm’ in movies. It seems Jennifer Aniston has made a career out of doing fornication movies. The average character on TV is very to extremely dysfunctional.
And behind it all, science, divorced from any sense of right and wrong, out of any sense of discernment, has created a twisted vision of living that people medidate on for hours whenever they turn on the TV or go to the movies.
The secular world was poisoned by experts. Guilt was abolished, along with sin. “Do your own thing” led to selfishness, greed and isolation. Love became devalued. Children a burden. Soon, there was No-Fault Pregnancy, No-Fault Divorce and No-Fault Living.
The atheist-scientist partnership has led to a world where people are more isolated, and less trusting of each other. Scientism tells man that he knows, or will soon know, everything worth knowing. He will order society. He will decide.
The fact of Jesus Christ becomes a story. As Pope Benedict said, Today, religion counts for nothing. Man wants to do it his way and nobody is going to tell him what to do. This leads to anarchy, since people cannot agree when there are no rules.
Science, through scientism, becomes the new dictator. Some people want Science to lead them, to absolve them of “primitive” ideas like sin and guilt, and to bring them to an age where no matter how badly they abuse themselves and their bodies, science will heal them.
Scientism is the new Marxism. Society, some think, needs to be ordered around a Scientific Elite. But, the problem, the eternal problem, will always be that evidence can be manipulated, or created, and lies can be presented as facts, all justified by a desire to create a greater good.
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
Peace,
Ed
S
StAnastasia
Guest
I challenge you to show me one syllabus from a Catholic university physics course teaching that nature abhors a vacuum.
http://www.groupkos.com/eso/show_image.php?id=96&scalesize=0&nocount=y
R
rad314
Guest
Thank you very much for sharing that. It took me a while to get through it, but it’s a very impressive, well-done, and persuasive piece of work.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Or rather they claimed to have scientific explanations. Like creationists, their “scientific” explanations turn out to be misconceptions or outright frauds.
- Status