Evolution and Darwin against Religion and God

[rossum]

It is important for those who are pro-evolution to look outside the confines of it.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature16972

You are mistaken. That article is well within the confines of evolution. Can you point out which particular part you think is outside the confines of evolution for us please.

Do not mistake new discoveries that result in a modification to the theory for something outside the theory. That is how science works; theories are expected to be adjusted to account for new discoveries. All scientific theories are based on incomplete information, and so are made flexible enough to include any new information that is discovered. Kimura’s neutral theory was just such a major modification to evolution. There will be more in future.

 

[buffalo]

St Augustine taught the possibility that organic beings developed from originally created seed powers.
assuming of course that everything developed from an original creation by God. He taught that some of God’s creations were brought into existence in a finished state, others were brought into being in the form of primitive seeds ( rationes seminades or causales ),

A certain development of living creatures was therefore accepted by some of the Church fathers and Scholastics. The idea that God created creatures in a primitive form that would later develop into something more advanced is therefore not only reconciliable with Catholic teaching on creation, but not even particularly new.

Yes, prime matter.

Here is St Augustine on prime matter:

AUGUSTINE AND EVOLUTION - A STUDY IN THE SAINT’S DE GENESI AD LITTERAM AND DE TRINITATE BY HENRY WOODS, S. J.

…Such prime matter, nevertheless, can exist only under some form. “We must not think of God as first creating matter,” the Saint admonishes, “and after an interval of time giving form to what He had created without form; but as creating it simultaneously with the world. As spoken words are produced by the speaker, not by giving form afterwards to a voice previously without form, but by uttering his voice fully formed, so we must understand that God did indeed create the world from unformed matter, yet concreated this matter simultaneously with the world. Still not uselessly do we tell, first that from which something is made, and afterwards what is made from it; because, though both can be made simultaneously, they can not be narrated simultaneously.”23 This we find again in the treatise we are especially discussing. “When we say matter and form, we understand both simultaneously, though we cannot pronounce them simultaneously. As in the brief space of speaking we pronounce one before the other, so in the longer time of narration we discuss one before the other. Still God created both simultaneously, while we in our speech take up first in time what is first in origin only.”24

 

[buffalo]

cont’d

Prime matter can be called not only what it actually was under some elementary form, but also what it was to become by future formation. This most important principle St. Augustine lays down in explaining against the Manicheans the text: “In the beginning God created heaven and earth.” He says: “Unformed matter is here called heaven and earth, not because it was this, but because it was able to become this; for heaven, it is written, was made afterwards. For if, considering a seed, we say that roots and wood and branches and fruit and leaves are there, not because they are there now, but because they are to be from it, in the same way it is said, ‘In the beginning God made heaven and earth,’ as if he made the seed of heaven and earth, when the matter of heaven and earth was still confused. But, because heaven and earth were certainly to be from it, matter itself is already called heaven and earth. Our Lord Himself uses this manner of speech when He says: ‘I will not now call you servants, because the servant knows not what his master does. But I have called you friends, because all things whatsoever I have heard from the Father, I have made known to you.’25 Not that he had actually done so as yet, but because the manifestation was certainly to take place.”26

and…

27 In the beginning, therefore, God created prime matter with its potency positively determined to all things that were to be, so that these things may be said literally, not figuratively, to have been created simultaneously with it.

 

[o_mlly]

So science effectively says: ‘Macro evolution (as you insist on defining it - i.e. speciation) does occur’.

And as rossum has timely pointed out above, even that which would be described as micro evolution by our local fundamentalists can result in speciation.

Whoa … I didn’t insist on any definition but I do insist on getting an evolutionist’s definition. “We the willing … etc”.

I give you an example of why confusion persists. Our correspondent @rossum gave us this definition of species:

For biological “species” see Biological species concept

Biological species concept

The biological species concept defines a species as members of populations that actually or potentially interbreed in nature, not according to similarity of appearance. Although appearance is helpful in identifying species, it does not define species.

And then again refers us to the marbled crayfish as an example of new species implying the single event as a combo micro-macro evolution in one step. ?

Macro evolution cannot be micro evolution on steroids

But then there is this …
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_41

The definition of a species as a group of interbreeding individuals cannot be easily applied to organisms that reproduce only or mainly asexually.

The lack of clarity in our friendly evolutionists’ various definitions of “macro evolution” and “species” is a source of confusion. Would @rossum and @niceatheist and @bradskii kindly offer a consensus definition for the two terms? Two concise definitions, if you please, will help immensely.

 

[niceatheist]

I’ve been avoiding this thread, but macro-evolution is generally defined as “evolution above the species level”, in other words genetic changes that lead to speciation events, and more broadly to evolutionary trends in related populations. The definition of species is trickier, because nature doesn’t play by our rules. There are no neat lines.

In general, a species is considered to be a reproductively isolated population; whether that be due to an accumulation of genetic differences that lead to fully or partially sterile hybrids, or makes fertilization impossible, but can also be as simple as geographical isolation (for instance, polar bears and grizzly bears are taxonomically considered two separate species, and yet they can interbreed, it’s just that generally they inhabit rather different territories so interbreeding is very rare). There are also ring species, where populations at the extreme ends of geographical ranges can’t interbreed, but each intermediary population can breed with the other, thus allowing some gene flow between all the populations.

One of the best examples of how hard it is to pin down a species is genus Canis. For quite a while wolves and domestic dogs were viewed as two different species; there were significant morphological differences between wolf populations and domestic dog species, and it was thought that most interbreeding events were due to human intervention. And yet genetic evidence demonstrates that there is a natural gene flow between dogs and wolves, demonstrating that even though breeding behaviors between wolf and dog populations have changed, they will still interbreed naturally, to the point that domestic dogs are now just called C. lupus familiaris. But even with more distantly related members of Canis, like coyotes, there is still gene flow with C. lupus.

The notion of species that you often here about is more a useful simplification. Certainly many members of many genuses cannot interbreed. Chromosome counts seem to be by and large a chief reason for lack of interbreeding capability or sterile hybrids, since production of gametes through meiosis is disrupted, rendering sperm and eggs non-viable.

An example of how chromosome counts themselves can indicate speciation events is the difference in chromosome pairs in humans and chimpanzees. Chimpanzees have 24 pairs, whereas humans have 23. It appears that at some point an ancestral population to humans had two chromosomes fuse, producing Human Chromosome Number Two. This difference in chromosome count would almost certainly made interbreeding between these ancestral populations that evolved into humans and related populations impossible, but the fact is that Human Chromosome 2 looks a lot like the two fused chromosomes found in Chimpanzees.

 

[edwest211]

It’s a bit more complicated.

Patterns of Sequence Differences among Chromosomes​

The observation that the autosomes differ in their average extent of nucleotide divergence (fig. 2) is intriguing. Regional differences in divergence rates have been seen previously for expressed genes (Casane et al. 1997; Matassi et al. 1999). Furthermore, it was recently shown that when gene sequences are compared between humans and mice, as well as between mice and rats, genes located on the same human or rodent chromosome have similar divergence rates (Lercher et al. 2001). At present, the features of the genome that determine these differences have not been identified. However, it is interesting that the distribution of differences between the chimpanzee and human genomes (fig. 2) is similar ( P <.01, excluding the sex chromosomes) to the distribution of differences at silent sites in coding sequences between human and mouse (Lercher et al. 2001). For example, among the five human autosomes that show the highest divergence from the chimpanzee (chromosomes 4, 8, 18, 19, and 21), three are among the five human autosomes (chromosomes 4, 13, 16, 19, and 21) that show the highest divergence at silent sites in human and mouse genes. Similarly, of the three chromosomes that have changed the least between humans and chimpanzees (chromosomes 11, 14, and 17), two are among the three chromosomes (14, 15, and 17) that show the lowest divergence at silent sites in human and mouse genes. Consequently, whatever factors determine the relative rates of divergence at the chromosomal scale are conserved over long time periods."

Source: Genomewide Comparison of DNA Sequences between Humans and Chimpanzees

 

[Bradskii]

Maybe you are not aware Lucy has been debunked.

I don’t think it’s Lucy that’s been debunked…

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Macro evolution, that is - speciation, doesn’t occur.
Oh, well OK it does.

I am OK if you want to accept macro evolution as loss of reproductive ability that ultimately leads to extinction. Do we agree?

You still can’t grasp that there are two sides to the coin. Different species by definition can reproduce within their own species but cannot outside of their own species.

You cannot use use your definition on its own. It’s like claiming that you are shorter than me without accepting that I am taller than you.

And gee, things go extinct. Whodda thought. Well, except for all the success stories (just look out of your window).

 

[rossum]

Maybe you are not aware Lucy has been debunked.

But Australopithecus afarensis has not. And it is only in the wilder reaches of creationism non-science that the “debunking” of Lucy has any support.

What, exactly, prevents us using AL-288-1 as a valid fossil from which to draw scientific inferences?

 

[LateCatholic]

Evolution and Christianity don’t have to be against each other according to the Catholic Church.

This is the official Church position. But Evolution does pose some interesting dilemmas in terms of Original Sin, most theories of the Atonement, the historicity of many historical religious figures, the Flood, and so forth.

When you dig deeper, it becomes very difficult to rationalize Evolution with Catholic dogma. It causes a lot of problems. Most Catholics ignore it, but from a theological perspective, we need to make some major changes.

 

[buffalo]

You still can’t grasp that there are two sides to the coin. Different species by definition can reproduce within their own species but cannot outside of their own species.

Group A and Group B are isolated and no longer can reproduce. This lineage splitting we call speciation (and you call macro evolution). There is a loss of a function once had. Group A did not gain a new function for they still can reproduce within Group A just like they did before they split from Group B. Same for Group B.

 

[buffalo]

Here is what PNAS says:

“The presence of the morphology in both the latter and Au. afarensis and its absence in modern humans cast doubt on the role of Au. afarensis as a modern human ancestor.”

https://www.pnas.org/content/104/16/6568

 

[o_mlly]

I’ve been avoiding this thread, but macro-evolution is generally defined as “evolution above the species level”, in other words genetic changes that lead to speciation events, and more broadly to evolutionary trends in related populations.

Thank you.

Would it follow from this definition that macro evolution is the collection of micro evolution events over time that result in a novel species, i.e., speciation?

Would it also follow that there is a threshold micro evolution event that is also the macro evolution event that determines speciation? That is, prior to that micro evolution event, the existing population could successfully interbreed with ancestors but the subsequent descendants cannot?

In general, a species is considered to be a reproductively isolated population; whether that be due to an accumulation of genetic differences that lead to fully or partially sterile hybrids, or makes fertilization impossible, but can also be as simple as geographical isolation (for instance, polar bears and grizzly bears are taxonomically considered two separate species, and yet they can interbreed, it’s just that generally they inhabit rather different territories so interbreeding is very rare). There are also ring species, where populations at the extreme ends of geographical ranges can’t interbreed, but each intermediary population can breed with the other, thus allowing some gene flow between all the populations.

Again, thank you.

These gray areas of the definition of species seem to emanate from the scientists limitations in collecting meaningful observations. For instance, the geographical isolation presumes speciation until disproved as in your polar/grizzly bears and dog/wolf examples. While science can only work with the data at hand, I perceive the researchers have an incentive to prematurely declare eureka in this area; publish or perish rule being the main driver.

It also seems that the advances in genetic research will allow far better precision in taxonomy below the genus level. If true, would not evolutionists prefer to err on the conservative side, that is withhold the declaration of new species until the chromosomal evidence is available? The geographic isolation would lose its prima facie standing as evidence of speciation.

 

[niceatheist]

I wouldn’t say it’s an observational limitation that makes species definitions fuzzy, it’s that nature itself is fuzzy. Different populations may have varying degrees of interfertility that aren’t reflected in other taxa throughout the tree of life. One of the big revolutions of the last twenty or thirty years has been a deeper understanding of how prokaryotic populations can exchange genes, even between species separated by hundreds of millions or even billions of years of evolution. Horizontal gene transfer is now seen as a pretty significant factor in evolution, which is a major change from Darwinian evolutionary theory. I also mentioned a few days ago ERVs, where viral infections can mean viral genes get inserted into germ lines, but it also can be a two way street, and sometimes host genes end up in viral genes, raising the possibility of horizontal gene transfers even between very distantly related organisms, via viruses.

There’s no hard fast rule, but scientists still must have an operational definition to work with, so species being defined as populations divided by some sort of reproductive isolation (geographical and/or biological) is a generally good rule of thumb.

As to macroevolution, I think a useful shorthand is that it could be defined as accumulation of microevolutionary changes that lead to reproductive isolation of a population (speciation), but from what little I’ve read of evolutionary phylogenetics, macroevolution could also be used to describe larger scale trends within taxa.

 

[buffalo]

Hat tip to @o_mlly

A subtler version of the this-has-been-said-before argument used to deflect any challenges to the received view is to pull the issue into the never ending micro-versus-macroevolution debate. Whereas ‘microevolution’ is regarded as the continuous change of allele frequencies within a species or population [109], the ill-defined macroevolution concept [36], amalgamates the issue of speciation and the origin of ‘higher taxa’ with so-called ‘major phenotypic change’ or new constructional types. Usually, a cursory acknowledgement of the problem of the origin of phenotypic characters quickly becomes a discussion of population genetic arguments about speciation, often linked to the maligned punctuated equilibria concept [9], in order to finally dismiss any necessity for theory change. The problem of phenotypic complexity thus becomes (in)elegantly bypassed. Inevitably, the conclusion is reached that microevolutionary mechanisms are consistent with macroevolutionary phenomena [36], even though this has very little to do with the structure and predictions of the EES. The real issue is that genetic evolution alone has been found insufficient for an adequate causal explanation of all forms of phenotypic complexity, not only of something vaguely termed ‘macroevolution’. Hence, the micro–macro distinction only serves to obscure the important issues that emerge from the current challenges to the standard theory. It should not be used in discussion of the EES, which rarely makes any allusions to macroevolution, although it is sometimes forced to do so.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsfs.2017.0015

 

[edwest211]

Thank you, buffalo. That was clear enough.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

You still can’t grasp that there are two sides to the coin. Different species by definition can reproduce within their own species but cannot outside of their own species.

Group A and Group B are isolated and no longer can reproduce. This lineage splitting we call speciation (and you call macro evolution). There is a loss of a function once had. Group A did not gain a new function for they still can reproduce within Group A just like they did before they split from Group B. Same for Group B.

Why is this so hard for you…

There is a Group A. For whatever reason, the species starts to split into two. And let’s face it, this doesn’t happen over the weekend. So we have the beginning of a group that will eventually become Group B. Call them a mixture of each. They are Group A/B. A mixture of each.

Can Group A interbreed. Yes, obviously.
Can Group A/B interbreed. Yes, obviously.
Can Group A breed with Group A/B. Yes, at this stage.

So there’s lots of breeding going on here but we can see that neither group has lost anything. Good so far?

Now Group A/B continues it’s drift away from Group A and becomes a different species: Group B.

Can Group A interbreed? Yes, obviously.
Can Group B interbreed? Yes, obviously.

Now pay attention to this. It’s the important bit…

Can Group A breed with Group B? No - they have lost the ability to breed with the evolving group.
Can Group B breed with Group A? No, They have lost the ability to breed with the group that is not evolving.

Well, looks like a score draw to me!

And to repeat the bit that you have never been able to grasp: As your ancestors gradually split from Austalopithicus afarensis to become Homo sapien, Lucy gradually lost her ability to breed with your ancestors and they gradually lost their ability to breed with her.

Clear?

 

[edwest211]

No, not at all. I edit and write fiction for a living. Those stories need to be plausible. I need to have a good grasp of science, including fringe science, to make that happen. I don’t think that story would hold up in fiction.

 

[buffalo]

Can Group A breed with Group B? No - they have lost the ability to breed with the evolving group.
Can Group B breed with Group A? No, They have lost the ability to breed with the group that is not evolving.

LOL
Can Group A breed with Group B? No - they have lost the ability to breed with the devolving group.
Can Group B breed with Group A? No, They have lost the ability to breed with the group that is not devolving.

 

[Bradskii]

No, not at all. I edit and write fiction for a living. Those stories need to be plausible. I need to have a good grasp of science, including fringe science, to make that happen. I don’t think that story would hold up in fiction.

I really can’t see this happening, but we’d all like to see what you write. I’d pay good money for it!

Name a reasonable price and I will donate it to the charity of your choice.