EVOLUTION: A Catholic Solution?

[mpartyka]

The Theory of Evolution
Judged by Reason and Faith by Cardinal Ernesto Ruffini

http://www.pcpbooks.com/images/new_books/theory_of_evolution/theory_of_evolution_angle164x300.jpg

Newly reprinted. I just got a copy. Cardinal Ruffini opposes the belief that the human body evolved from animals.

Cardinal Ruffini died 40 years ago. Genetics has come a long way since then, and what we now know about genetics is sufficient to prove at least the descent of man and chimpanzee from a common ancestor.

–Mike

 

[reggieM]

Cardinal Ruffini died 40 years ago. Genetics has come a long way since then,

I haven’t read the book but I think it criticizes evolutionary theory in areas that are still relevant today.

and what we now know about genetics is sufficient to prove at least the descent of man and chimpanzee from a common ancestor.

There are scientists who disagree with that conclusion.

 

[hecd2]

There are scientists who disagree with that conclusion [that humans and chimpanzees are descended from a common ancestor].

There are hardly any, if any at all, scientists who are qualified to judge who disagree. Could you find, say, three molecular biologists amongst the thousands who are working in the field who disagree with that conclusion and who have published their reasoning in a scientific journal?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[edwest2]

Cardinal Ruffini died 40 years ago. Genetics has come a long way since then, and what we now know about genetics is sufficient to prove at least the descent of man and chimpanzee from a common ancestor.

–Mike

I don’t think so. Prove? I am reminded many times here that science cannot prove anything (a bizarre idea, I know, but that’s what I’ve been told).

Peace,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

There are hardly any, if any at all, **scientists who are qualified to judge **who disagree. Could you find, say, three molecular biologists amongst the thousands who are working in the field who disagree with that conclusion and who have published their reasoning in a scientific journal?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

The point I raised stands, as evidenced by the qualifers you placed in your response (see highlighted text).

Are you a molecular biologist?

 

[mpartyka]

There are scientists who disagree with that conclusion.

Honestly, if they’ve looked at the results of genetic comparisons between humans and chimps, I can’t see how that’s possible. I’m not talking about comparisons that say “we’re about XX% the same” – that doesn’t prove anything in and of itself – I’m talking about the comparisons that say “This gene was randomly copied to these 19 different places located all over the chimp genome, and when we look at the human genome, here are the same copies in the same places. And if you look here, you’ll see that this one copy that was broken in half is also in both genomes. This series of copies cannot have happened in exactly the same way in two unrelated genomes, so there had to be a common ancestor species in which these copies originally took place, and this ancestor species then split off into human and chimp lineages.”

I would strongly suggest that anyone wanting a final verdict on common ancestry between humans and chimps read the book Relics of Eden by Daniel Fairbanks.

–Mike

 

[reggieM]

This series of copies cannot have happened in exactly the same way in two unrelated genomes,

It’s very rare to hear evolutionary scientists say that something “cannot” have happened. One could look at the concept of “convergent evolution” for example. To the observation that “two incredibly complex, virtually identical, structures found in organisms with different ancestors cannot be the product of known evolutionary mechanisms”, the response is “Yes, they just happened to evolve like that – entirely separately”.

But it would be interesting to see the mathematics that prove that a series of copies cannot have happened in exactly the same way. This would be, at least, an admission that evolutionary processes do have limits, and one could start to develop a mathematical model that would show some things to be “impossible”.

 

[buffalo]

How about devolution - look at this.

Bizarre Crustaceans Undergo Evolution in Reverse

**** Among the greatest mysteries in zoology for more than a century have been vaguely shrimp-like creatures known as y-larvae.**
Although these microscopic beasts are clearly young crustaceans, no one knew what the adult forms looked like.
Now researchers may have solved this puzzle by dosing the y-larvae with a hormone that forced them to go through a growth spurt.
The result — simple, pulsing, slug-like masses of cells that were “mind-blowing” to the scientists.
• Click here to watch the strange creature turn from a shrimp into a worm.
**

 

[edwest2]

Honestly, if they’ve looked at the results of genetic comparisons between humans and chimps, I can’t see how that’s possible. I’m not talking about comparisons that say “we’re about XX% the same” – that doesn’t prove anything in and of itself – I’m talking about the comparisons that say “This gene was randomly copied to these 19 different places located all over the chimp genome, and when we look at the human genome, here are the same copies in the same places. And if you look here, you’ll see that this one copy that was broken in half is also in both genomes. This series of copies cannot have happened in exactly the same way in two unrelated genomes, so there had to be a common ancestor species in which these copies originally took place, and this ancestor species then split off into human and chimp lineages.”

I would strongly suggest that anyone wanting a final verdict on common ancestry between humans and chimps read the book Relics of Eden by Daniel Fairbanks.

–Mike

“final verdict”? If one starts from the premise that common lineage is the answer, then common descent could be possible. But the other answer is design.

Put up a drawing of a hominid sleleton and a human skeleton. Using a computer program, how many parameters would have to be adjusted to make the hominid skeleton look just like the human skeleton? Look at the genetic coding. How many parameters would have to be adjusted to do the same? Change length here and here, change angles here and here.

Similar physical structures call for similar construction codes, or programs. Though we share physical construction similarities, hominids are not human beings.

Peace,
Ed

 

[mpartyka]

“final verdict”? If one starts from the premise that common lineage is the answer, then common descent could be possible. But the other answer is design.

Design implies that all the copies of a gene present in the organism were part of the organism’s original blueprint, but there are certain chemical “signatures” that one can detect in duplicate genes that clearly mark them as duplicates. In the case I was describing (which can be found in Relics of Eden) the gene in question was duplicated a number of times. We know that the duplicates are duplicates because the all carry the “signature” of a copy. And these duplicates are present in both the chimp genome and the human genome. That simply could not happen randomly, especially given the fact that one of these copies is damaged in a particular way in both genomes. The only explanation that makes any sense is that these duplications occurred in an ancestor species and were then passed to the chimp and human lines that sprang from that ancestor species.

–Mike

 

[Camron]

How about devolution - look at this.

Bizarre Crustaceans Undergo Evolution in Reverse

Among the greatest mysteries in zoology for more than a century have been vaguely shrimp-like creatures known as y-larvae.

Although these microscopic beasts are clearly young crustaceans, no one knew what the adult forms looked like.

Now researchers may have solved this puzzle by dosing the y-larvae with a hormone that forced them to go through a growth spurt.

The result — simple, pulsing, slug-like masses of cells that were “mind-blowing” to the scientists.
• Click here to watch the strange creature turn from a shrimp into a worm.

Hmmm…that’s very interesting…thank you for posting that.

 

[edwest2]

Design implies that all the copies of a gene present in the organism were part of the organism’s original blueprint, but there are certain chemical “signatures” that one can detect in duplicate genes that clearly mark them as duplicates. In the case I was describing (which can be found in Relics of Eden) the gene in question was duplicated a number of times. We know that the duplicates are duplicates because the all carry the “signature” of a copy. And these duplicates are present in both the chimp genome and the human genome. That simply could not happen randomly, especially given the fact that one of these copies is damaged in a particular way in both genomes. The only explanation that makes any sense is that these duplications occurred in an ancestor species and were then passed to the chimp and human lines that sprang from that ancestor species.

–Mike

Thank you for your reply. I am reminded of the confident scientific statement that so-called “junk DNA” would contain remnants of man’s evolutionary past. It contained no such thing and the whole thing was quietly forgotten. Meanwhile, a company in Australia is selling what turned to be not junk, but something useful.

Peace,
Ed

 

[mpartyka]

Thank you for your reply. I am reminded of the confident scientific statement that so-called “junk DNA” would contain remnants of man’s evolutionary past. It contained no such thing and the whole thing was quietly forgotten. Meanwhile, a company in Australia is selling what turned to be not junk, but something useful.

It doesn’t matter whether the duplicate genes actually do anything or not. The fact remains that they are duplicates, and we know this because of the chemical “signatures” that distinguish them as duplicates.

–Mike

 

[hecd2]

Thank you for your reply. I am reminded of the confident scientific statement that so-called “junk DNA” would contain remnants of man’s evolutionary past. It contained no such thing and the whole thing was quietly forgotten.

It does contain them and it hasn’t been forgotten. You obviously haven’t been paying attention. You should look up common ancestral processed pseudogenes, retrotransposons, and interspersed repeats. I recommend that you try to get your facts right before making absurdly wrong statements as you have here.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

hecd2:

There are hardly any, if any at all, **scientists who are qualified to judge **

who disagree. Could you find, say, three molecular biologists amongst the thousands who are working in the field who disagree with that conclusion and who have published their reasoning in a scientific journal?The point I raised stands, as evidenced by the qualifers you placed in your response (see highlighted text).

So, as I thought, you can’t find even three molecular biologists amongst the thousands actively working in science who conclude that humans and chimpanzees do not descend from a common ancestor. I think that it’s my point that stands.

How about three paleaontologists? Three systematists? Three primatologists? Three geneticists? Three comparative anatomists? Three physical anthropolgists? No?

There is always the odd crank and fruitcake, but to claim that there is a credible scientific alternative to the common ancestry of chimps and humans is bizarrely wrong and misleading.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[edwest2]

“common ancestry of chimps and humans” “bizarrely wrong”?

What I think is bizarrely wrong is coming to a Catholic forum and declaring Adam and Eve myths. Catholics are told through the Bible that through one man, sin entered the world. But this is all part of the current fashion. What I call the “Bible Explanation Industry.” A sort of odd hobby until something else comes along.

Science is not a dictatorship. There is a proper relationship between faith and science.

What is also bizarre is the worship of the human mind and attempts to tie it to the faith. The story goes that once hominids became smart enough, they could experience God. A totally false statement that science cannot demonstrate is true. At the same time, some people hold that religion was created by man, and call God a delusion (Dawkins).

No. The Catholic Church proclaims that God was involved, which is outside the scope of science as currently practiced, but is vital information that should be known by everyone.

Peace,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

So, as I thought, you can’t find even three molecular biologists …

You’re too embarrassed to admit that you’re not a molecular biologist. I can fully understand that. By your own standard, you’re not qualified to judge the topic and have no credibility on the topic of biological evolution. All of your pseudo-outrage comes right back to you with this – you’re not a biologist and therefore (by your claims) have nothing of any value to contribute to the topic.

There is always the odd crank and fruitcake

As some innovative scientists were considered as they went against the status quo.

 

[wildleafblower]

ReggieM, Alec and Eric Chaisson talk the same talk and so do I, a Roman Catholic woman with a ton of intuition and intelligence.

EVOLUTION by Eric J. Chaisson, Wright Center for Science Education (1) summed it up best for me, especially the terminology used by adults today. Here’s an excerpt from PATHS TOWORD HUMANITY:

Take chimps, for example. Studies of selected genes from our closest relative have consistently found that ~98% of human DNA is identical to that of chimpanzees (and >99.9% identical to the person next to you). That means there are fewer genetic differences between chimps and humans than between horses and zebras or between dolphins and porpoises. Only a small part of the human genome is responsible for the traits that make us human—including our ability to walk, talk, write, build complex things, and enact moral imperatives. That said, chimps look and act like us only to an extent; their anatomy and behavior do distinctly differ from ours. (Admittedly, a 2% difference among an estimated billion base pairs does still allow for millions of variations among strings of nucleotides that govern protein manufacture.) So, what comprises those 2% biochemical differences and can we trace them back to their genetic origins—to look back in time to infer evolutionary insight? If recent studies are correct, it’s not only the number of gene differences that’s telling, but also the relative activity (or “expression” by which they produce proteins) of certain genes. Evidently, gene expression in human brains differs greatly from that in chimps, implying faster rates of neural evolution for our ancestors while on the road to humanity.(2)

1. tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/splash.html
   http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/splash.html
2. http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/fr_1/fr_1_bio.html
   tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/fr_1/fr_1_bio.html

 

[rebecca12345]

If you’re going to put faith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ (as taken from the Bible) *why * do you then, as a fallible human, decide which bits of the Bible to believe and which to assume science knows better on?

NO human can prove the origin of life because they weren’t there…its always about faith & assumptions in the end… Personally I would rather put faith in a creator God than in a mysterious singularity and I believe there is a lot more proof of Him than of the latter.

Evolution of course is athiestic as it assumes naturalistic processes from the onset…so why would a so called ‘Christian’ presume athiesm is correct rather than the almighty God??

Furthermore, we can not disregard Genesis as it is not only important for the creation account but also provides the foundations for a lot of theological & spiritual issues. The major one that comes to mind is the first prophecy of a Messiah (Gen 3:15)…
creationontheweb.com/content/view/5073

If God exists (and I believe He does), then we should not separate Him from science - it is not logical…don’t be deceived…
But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good;
(1Th 5:21 NASB)

 

[reggieM]

Studies of selected genes from our closest relative have consistently found that ~98% of human DNA is identical to that of chimpanzees

Wildleafblower - thanks for the article, but I find that point (the basis of much of the argument) to be meaningless. It would suggest that human beings are merely 2% different than chimpanzees.

The reality is, however, human beings are different than any animal by an infinite degree.

Aside from that, the 98% similarity figure is misleading and incorrect in the view of some scientists.

More like 72% similarity, at best

[emphasis added by me]

Other scientists took a different view. They said that **it is obvious **that we are very different from chimpanzees in our appearance and way of life: if we are almost the same as chimpanzees in our DNA sequence, this simply means that **DNA sequence is the wrong place to look **in trying to understand what makes humans different.
Fortunately (for both the status of human beings and the status of genetics) we now know that the 98.5% figure is very misleading.
To compare the two genomes, the first thing we must do is to line up the parts of each genome that are similar. When we do this alignment, we discover that only 2400 million of the human genome’s 3164.7 million ’letters’ align with the chimpanzee genome - that is, 76% of the human genome. Some scientists have argued that the 24% of the human genome that does not line up with the chimpanzee genome is useless ”junk DNA”. However, it now seems that this DNA could contain over 600 protein-coding genes, and also code for functional RNA molecules.

Looking closely at the chimpanzee-like 76% of the human genome, we find that to make an exact alignment, we often have to **introduce artificial gaps **in either the human or the chimp genome. These gaps give another 3% difference. So now we have a 73% similarity between the two genomes.

In the neatly aligned sequences we now find another form of difference, where a single ’letter’ is different between the human and chimp genomes. These provide another 1.23% difference between the two genomes. Thus, the percentage difference is now at around 72%.

Additionally, human DNA is 92% similar to mice as well as 92% similar to zebrafish. It is 65% similar to a fruit fly and 75% similar to a worm.

By the logic, we are 92% mouse, or 75% worm.

http://www.midwood.net/brent/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/planet_of_the_apes.jpeg