Evolution: Catholic High School

[The_Barbarian]

Well, in your opinon/knowledge is the evidence for polygenism or monogenism—one word would do------???

Equivocal. It’s one of those things you take on faith, or not at all. There’s no evidence that rules it out, and there’s no evidence that confirms it.

 

[The_Barbarian]

See the encyclical Humani Generis, available online.

From that work:

**For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. **

 

[Wolseley]

It’s what the book is about. It presents time as it is in Vedic myths. The author has acknowledged this.

Wrong again. In his subsequent books, yes. In this book, no.

Why not post it one more time, so anyone new can come in and check up on it, and the author. That would be sufficient to make my point.

Delighted.
amazon.com/Forbidden-Archeology-Unabridged-Michael-Cremo/dp/0892132949/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1219067156&sr=1-1

Now, no criticism unless you have read the book itself. Reviews of the book do not count. Biographies of the author do not count. Supposed guesses of the content of the book by people who have not read it do not count. Reading the book is the only thing which will qualify anyone to critique it. And to soothe your fevered brow, there is not one word about Hinduism or its proselytization in it.

Go forth, read, and be informed.

 

[Wolseley]

I guess the question boils down to what happens when a souled human and an unsouled hominid mate.

Mortal sin on the part of the souled human, for one thing; although it wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest to see the California Supreme Court decide that a marriage between the two is valid.

 

[rossum]

Mortal sin on the part of the souled human, for one thing; although it wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest to see the California Supreme Court decide that a marriage between the two is valid.

Is it a mortal sin when a brother and sister mate? Consider this question in the context of Cain’s wife and Seth’s wife.

If you agree with monogenism then you are comitting to either incest or mating with unsouled humans. The latter has fewer issues with the scientific data on population sizes and the level of variation in the human genome.

rossum

 

[edwest2]

From that work:

**For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. **

Catholics are not allowed to believe in atheistic evolution, defined here in paragraph two:

catholic.com/library/adam_eve_and_evolution.asp

Peace,
Ed

 

[Wolseley]

Is it a mortal sin when a brother and sister mate? Consider this question in the context of Cain’s wife and Seth’s wife.

If you agree with monogenism then you are comitting to either incest or mating with unsouled humans. The latter has fewer issues with the scientific data on population sizes and the level of variation in the human genome.

rossum

God isn’t capable of removing all physical and spiritual detriments to monogenism? Is He limited? Incapable of some things? (You left out incest between Lot and his daughters, by the way.)

But if we want to discount miracles and stick to scientific arguments, I’m still waiting for a scientific explanation of Matthew 14:25. Let me know when you have one that can reproduced in the lab.

 

[rossum]

God isn’t capable of removing all physical and spiritual detriments to monogenism?

Then He is also capable of removing all physical and spiritual detriments to mating between souled humans and non-souled humans.

Is He limited? Incapable of some things?

Yes, God is incapable of either learning or moving. Because God is omniscient He knows everything, therefore He can never learn anything new because He already knew it. God is omnipresent, therefore He cannot move since He is already present at any possible destination and can never leave wherever He started.

You left out incest between Lot and his daughters, by the way.

I know, that incident was not relevant to the origins of Homo sapiens.

But if we want to discount miracles and stick to scientific arguments, I’m still waiting for a scientific explanation of Matthew 14:25. Let me know when you have one that can reproduced in the lab.

People can walk on water very easily:

http://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefmedia/sharemed/targets/images/pho/0018a/0018a776.jpg



rossum

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian points out:
It presents time as it is in Vedic myths. The author has acknowledged this.

In his subsequent books, yes. In this book, no.

Doesn’t matter when he admitted it.
]
Barbarian observes:
Why not post it one more time, so anyone new can come in and check up on it, and the author. That would be sufficient to make my point.

Delighted.
amazon.com/Forbidden-Arch…67156&sr= 1-1

Now, no criticism unless you have read the book itself.

Well, a question, then:
Do you agree with him that in his book the evidence is “consistent with the account of human origins given in the ancient Sanskrit writings of India.”
tinyurl.com/6g79qm

 

[Wolseley]

Then He is also capable of removing all physical and spiritual detriments to mating between souled humans and non-souled humans.

Quite true.

People can walk on water very easily:

http://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefmedia/sharemed/targets/images/pho/0018a/0018a776.jpg



rossum

Hell, **** I **** can do that—and I’m not even divine!

 

[hecd2]

Mutations do not occur at the level of DNA. Mutations occur during meiosis (chromosomes) and most scientists accept the gene as the fundamental unit of evolutionary change, not DNA, especially the allele (which is a product of meiosis). Of course not all scientists agree with that.

“Environment and other factors” is a redundancy because it’s all part of competition (including all sorts of factors) that favors some mutations over others which is natural selection.

I’ve been off-line for a while, and I know this is old and peripheral, but I couldn’t let this pass. If you’re going to correct someone’s (Phil’s as it happens) scientific concepts, then you should really understand what you are talking about. Almost everything you have said here is either wrong or muddled.

DNA is the molecule that carries the genetic code. A gene is a stretch of DNA that codes for a protein (but also for RNA), A chromosome is the physical embodiment of DNA in a cell, consisting of a very long stretch of DNA containing many genes and non-coding sequences, packaged by histone proteins to form the complex of DNA and protein called chromatin. Alleles are alternative versions of a gene which exist in different members of the same species.

Now it is perfectly acceptable to say that mutations occur at the level of DNA - in fact that is precisely where they occur. A mutation is simply an error in copying the DNA sequence and it can occur during meiosis or mitosis (although only the former is heritable). Your statement about alleles is just muddled.

As for the environment and other factors being redundant, that is not so. Although the environment acts through natural selection, it also acts through epigenetics, the effect of non-coding influences including environmental conditions which affect the timing, location and intensity of protein expression, causing quite radical differences between organisms even though the underlying genetic code might be identical.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/intro_evolution.htm

 

[PhilVaz]

Hecd << Now it is perfectly acceptable to say that mutations occur at the level of DNA - in fact that is precisely where they occur. A mutation is simply an error in copying the DNA sequence and it can occur during meiosis or mitosis (although only the former is heritable). Your statement about alleles is just muddled. >>

Thanks, I now get a C in biology class!

BTW, I sure hope Roger does not start quoting Sungenis or the “Kolbe Center” to his religion students. After all we’ve said in this thread!

Phil P

 

[cceerpp]

Hecd << Now it is perfectly acceptable to say that mutations occur at the level of DNA - in fact that is precisely where they occur. A mutation is simply an error in copying the DNA sequence and it can occur during meiosis or mitosis (although only the former is heritable). Your statement about alleles is just muddled. >>

Thanks, I now get a C in biology class!

BTW, I sure hope Roger does not start quoting Sungenis or the “Kolbe Center” to his religion students. After all we’ve said in this thread!

Phil P

I agree with you Uncle Phil.

 

[Namesake]

I’ve been off-line for a while, and I know this is old and peripheral, but I couldn’t let this pass. If you’re going to correct someone’s (Phil’s as it happens) scientific concepts, then you should really understand what you are talking about. Almost everything you have said here is either wrong or muddled.

DNA is the molecule that carries the genetic code. A gene is a stretch of DNA that codes for a protein (but also for RNA), A chromosome is the physical embodiment of DNA in a cell, consisting of a very long stretch of DNA containing many genes and non-coding sequences, packaged by histone proteins to form the complex of DNA and protein called chromatin. Alleles are alternative versions of a gene which exist in different members of the same species.

Now it is perfectly acceptable to say that mutations occur at the level of DNA - in fact that is precisely where they occur. A mutation is simply an error in copying the DNA sequence and it can occur during meiosis or mitosis (although only the former is heritable). Your statement about alleles is just muddled.

As for the environment and other factors being redundant, that is not so. Although the environment acts through natural selection, it also acts through epigenetics, the effect of non-coding influences including environmental conditions which affect the timing, location and intensity of protein expression, causing quite radical differences between organisms even though the underlying genetic code might be identical.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/intro_evolution.htm

I disagree with a lot of what you state here. DNA has nothing to do with meiosis, other than that changes in DNA might affect the process in an obscure way. I would never call a DNA sequence change a mutation, although some scientists do.

The organism probably isn’t the best place to look for evolutionary changes. The most valuable place to look is at the level of the gene, not DNA, not the organism, not the population, etc.

The concept of selfish genes and extended phenotype is in my opinion beyond conjecture. DNA is of course important, but not the fundamental unit of evolution, nor is the organism the fundamental unit. Only the gene is immortal, no other factor.

 

[hecd2]

Hecd << Now it is perfectly acceptable to say that mutations occur at the level of DNA - in fact that is precisely where they occur. A mutation is simply an error in copying the DNA sequence and it can occur during meiosis or mitosis (although only the former is heritable). Your statement about alleles is just muddled. >>

Thanks, I now get a C in biology class!

At least a C, mate. It gets my goat when someone who clearly doesn’t know the first thing about molecular biology has the gall to patronise those who heve taken the trouble to read more than one book.

BTW, I sure hope Roger does not start quoting Sungenis or the “Kolbe Center” to his religion students. After all we’ve said in this thread!

Phil P

Well, I’m pretty sure that Roger is a troll for Sungenis and not a religious teacher seeking guidance, so I wouldn’t worry too much about it.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

I disagree with a lot of what you state here.

Here’s a piece of advice - when in a hole, stop digging.

DNA has nothing to do with meiosis, other than that changes in DNA might affect the process in an obscure way.

Well actually meiosis is, fundamentally, a process whereby gametes (or haploid cells) are produced by the recombination and copying of the DNA sequence in the diploid germ cell, followed by segregation. To say that DNA has nothing to do with meiosis is like saying that petrol or gasoline has nothing to do with the internal combustion cycle.

I would never call a DNA sequence change a mutation, although some scientists do.

You might not, but ALL scientists do. That is because a mutation is a change between the parent and the daughter DNA sequence - that is just what it is - it is that and nothing else. I am afraid that you are making yourself look rather silly.

The organism probably isn’t the best place to look for evolutionary changes. The most valuable place to look is at the level of the gene, not DNA, not the organism, not the population, etc.

Oh really? I can see that you have read at least part of Dawkin’s The Selfish Gene and badly misunderstood it. Can you explain how you can assess the evolution of the gene without looking at DNA? Can you also explain how natural selection acts directly on genes, bypassing the organism? I don’t think you actually know what DNA, or genes, or chromosomes or alleles are.

The concept of selfish genes and extended phenotype is in my opinion beyond conjecture.

So, you are Dawkins fan. You have at least read the titles of two of his books. Whether you understand even the titles is doubtful. Can you explain for example how the concept of the selfish gene affects and is affected by the extended phenotype?

DNA is of course important, but not the fundamental unit of evolution, nor is the organism the fundamental unit. Only the gene is immortal, no other factor.

Since it is clear from what you have said that you don’t know what DNA is (you treat, erroneously, DNA and genes and chromosomes as though they were entirely separate things) we’ll let this pass. Except, I am tempted to ask you to define the “fundamental unit of evolution”. What does it mean and how would we know it when we find it?

The fact is that you’ve been caught pontificating about something that you know nothing about. There is no shame in ignorance, but there is considerable shame in pretending to be an authority (to the extent of “correcting” others) in a subject where you have misunderstood the concepts so fundamentally.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[anthony022071]

Yet, it also seems to have some dependence upon natural things. Most natural things that have life, also seem to coincidentally have a polymer of DNA or RNA. Most also seem to need certian chemicals inorder to be active. Many may die if they are not present.

Ultimately,it isn’t chemicals that sustain living creatures,but spirit sustains the chemical elements in the functions of organisms.
Spirit is the invisible element that makes the processes of life happen in the first place.

I’m not trying to make a counter argument or anything. To prove the supernatural wrong by studying the natural may not be the most appropriate means of doing so, but there should be some way to reconcile what appears as our findings from our natural studies.

Everything would be clarified if science would admit that life in nature is extrinsic to nature,and therefore super-natural. Not everything on earth is alive,and everything which is alive is mortal. So life is not intrinsic to the natural world. Creatures are dependent upon a supernatural element. This means that the natural history of species cannot be understood in purely naturalistic terms.

 

[anthony022071]

IF it was, it would have been “Origin of Life”, not “Origin of Species.”

Darwin made no claims about the origin of life in that book, except to say that God did it.

He wrote about the origin of living species,which is the same as the origin of life on earth. Living species are life on earth.

 

[The_Barbarian]

He wrote about the origin of living species,which is the same as the origin of life on earth. Living species are life on earth.

No. Darwin showed how living species evolve from other living things. This is entirely different than the origin of life on Earth.

If you don’t understand this, you have no hope of understanding anything about either theory.

 

[edwest2]

That statement is misleading. The first life is the key to the rest of life. The connection is obvious.

Peace,
Ed