Evolution- inspire me~ please!

[MickyR]

I DO NOT want creationist comments- that’s a pseudoscience.

Well you’re going to get one anyway. Evolution is one of the many Victorian naturalistic theories of the 19th-century and they all oppose Catholic Truth.

Please tell me if you have read even one work critiquing evolution. I’m quite sure you have not. You have so clearly fallen hook, line and sinker for the creationism is for “morons, narrow-minded, old fashioned, bigoted and the unscientific” slanders.

There are many many well qualified scientists and academics such as Professor Michael Behe (Biochemist and author of Darwin’s Black Box), Michael Denton (molecular biologist, medical Doctor and author of Evolution: A Theory In Crisis), and Professor Paul Back (Former Rhodes scholar and author of Darwinism and The Rise of Degenerate Science) who oppose the godless theory of evolution.

I personally recommend Oxford University’s Paul Back’s work wasdarwinright.com/index.html
amazon.com/Darwinism-Rise-Degenerate-Science-Paul/dp/157921584X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212086390&sr=8-1

As you so clearly have not read any such works you are a pseudo-scholar and I leave you to enjoy sorting out the mess in your own mind because you erroneously regard evolution is a scientific “fact” that no intelligent person would dispute.

If you really choose to accept prevailing godless theories unanswered I pity you. Your culture is more to blame than you are. People aren’t taught to think.

 

[CThomas]

Hi, rossum. I’m trying to follow one issue in your post numbered 11 in this discussion chain. You say: “The most recent human genetic bottleneck was about 70,000 years ago when the human population was reduced to between 1,000 and 10,000 breeding pairs (Stanley H. Ambrose (1998). “Late Pleistocene human population bottlenecks, volcanic winter, and differentiation of modern humans”. Journal of Human Evolution 34 (6): 623-651).” If I read you right, you are using this to establish that “the evidence of our DNA indicates that at no time has the human population been as low as one breeding pair.” (This is the evididence you seem to cite for that.) But I don’t understand why the evidence regarding the most recent human genetic bottleneck supports the conclusion that there was not a more significant bottleneck earlier in time than that. On it’s face that seems like a non sequitur, but I’m not saying that there isn’t something else out there that you have in mind.

Thanks,

CThomas

 

[CThomas]

By the way, I should have mentioned that I’m going to be traveling from tomorrow through most of next week so please don’t interpret a failure to respond as rudely ignoring you!

CThomas

 

[MickyR]

Spend less time exchanging snippets on internet forums and more time reading big books. That’s my philosophy.

That’s how I get 10% above distinction at Master’s degree level. Now back to Fr Hardon’s Catechism and resolve to stop wasting time.

 

[CThomas]

Ah don’t know about all that readin’, Micky. Them big books tend to have some awful big words in 'em.

(Kidding around, but I do think that most of us do a fair bit of reading as well as posting on the internet, my friend.)

CThomas

 

[buffalo]

Ah don’t know about all that readin’, Micky. Them big books tend to have some awful big words in 'em.

(Kidding around, but I do think that most of us do a fair bit of reading as well as posting on the internet, my friend.)

CThomas

Buffaloes can’t read - we just graze and trample. You should see my keyboard with the large hoofkeys.

 

[rossum]

Old world, New world? Can you explain this a bit more?

I do not know how much you know, so please forgive me if I pitch this wrong. Start with the Primates. One of the groups of primates is Platyrrhines which all live in the New World and have flat (platy) noses (rhine). They are also called New World monkeys.

Also branching off the Primates are the Catarrhines which all live in the Old World and have narrow (cattar) noses (rhine). This group includes old world monkeys, gibbons, great apes and humans.

Can you show the identical error.

Have a look at Nishikimi, M.; Fukuyama, R.; Minoshima, S.; Shimizu, N.; Yagi, K. : Cloning and chromosomal mapping of the human nonfunctional gene for L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase, the enzyme for L-ascorbic acid biosynthesis missing in man. J. Biol. Chem. 269: 13685-13688, 1994. PubMed ID : 8175804, (PDF).
The PDF contains a listing of the GULO pseudogene (GULOP) indicating the errors.

The Nishikimi et. al. paper is technical, and is typical of the kind of detailed evidence that supports evolution.

‘Some sort of ape’ is not very exact as evidence, though.

It is quite possible that we have not found an actual fossil of our common ancestor with the other apes. In the absence of any fossil I cannot be more precise. It would probably have looked more like a chimpanzee than us and lived in forests rather than more open savannah. Unfortunately, forests are not good places for fossilisation.

We were classified as an ape on morphological evidence by Linnaeus in 1735 and have been there ever since. The DNA evidence is enough to show that Linnaeus was right and that we are apes, Hominidae.

rossum

 

[Thing]

Grand job rossum, but before I read any more of 8175804(pdf), is there any use asking you if humans are related to guinea pigs?
I appreciate you typing all this info.

 

[rossum]

Hi, rossum. I’m trying to follow one issue in your post numbered 11 in this discussion chain. You say: “The most recent human genetic bottleneck was about 70,000 years ago when the human population was reduced to between 1,000 and 10,000 breeding pairs. …” But I don’t understand why the evidence regarding the most recent human genetic bottleneck supports the conclusion that there was not a more significant bottleneck earlier in time than that. On it’s face that seems like a non sequitur, but I’m not saying that there isn’t something else out there that you have in mind.

Bottlenecks leave traces in genomes. For example cheetahs had a bottleneck about 10,000 years ago - possibly as low as five breeding pairs. Today cheetahs are so genetically similar that we can transplant skin from one cheetah to another without any problems of rejection. There may have been a bottleneck down to one “human” breeding pair long before 70,000 years ago but if there was then it was so long ago that the single pair would not have been Homo sapiens. We know how fast different genes mutate and we can measure how long it has taken for the amount of variation we see currently in the human genome to accumulate. As I said, cheetahs are practically clones of each other because 10,000 years is not a lot of time to accumulate variations. Some of our genes have enough variation to indicate that the latest possible date for a bottleneck as narrow as one breeding pair was two million years ago. For more on the latest human bottleneck see Toba Catastrophe Theory.

By the way, I should have mentioned that I’m going to be traveling from tomorrow through most of next week so please don’t interpret a failure to respond as rudely ignoring you!

Not a problem.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

I do not know how much you know, so please forgive me if I pitch this wrong. Start with the Primates. One of the groups of primates is Platyrrhines which all live in the New World and have flat (platy) noses (rhine). They are also called New World monkeys.

Also branching off the Primates are the Catarrhines which all live in the Old World and have narrow (cattar) noses (rhine). This group includes old world monkeys, gibbons, great apes and humans.

Have a look at Nishikimi, M.; Fukuyama, R.; Minoshima, S.; Shimizu, N.; Yagi, K. : Cloning and chromosomal mapping of the human nonfunctional gene for L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase, the enzyme for L-ascorbic acid biosynthesis missing in man. J. Biol. Chem. 269: 13685-13688, 1994. PubMed ID : 8175804, (PDF).
The PDF contains a listing of the GULO pseudogene (GULOP) indicating the errors.

The Nishikimi et. al. paper is technical, and is typical of the kind of detailed evidence that supports evolution.

It is quite possible that we have not found an actual fossil of our common ancestor with the other apes. In the absence of any fossil I cannot be more precise. It would probably have looked more like a chimpanzee than us and lived in forests rather than more open savannah. Unfortunately, forests are not good places for fossilisation.

We were classified as an ape on morphological evidence by Linnaeus in 1735 and have been there ever since. The DNA evidence is enough to show that Linnaeus was right and that we are apes, Hominidae.

rossum

Let’s say we are bombarded tomorrow with a gamma ray burst that mutates a certain gene that is common to all mammals.

And let’s say you rossum 1 million years from now study this. What conclusion would you draw?

 

[reggieM]

Evolution has no disagreement with supernatural gifts since they are outside the realm of science.

The theory of evolution is not restricted to scientific data. It is built on a philosophical foundation and cannot be understood without recognizing that.

The Holy See has taught that “some theories of evolution” are incompatible with the Catholic Faith.

In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis ), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.

 

[buffalo]

The theory of evolution is not restricted to scientific data. It is built on a philosophical foundation and cannot be understood without recognizing that.

The Holy See has taught that “some theories of evolution” are incompatible with the Catholic Faith.

Agreed - it is definitely built on or exhibits a philosophical foundation.

 

[rossum]

Let’s say we are bombarded tomorrow with a gamma ray burst that mutates a certain gene that is common to all mammals.

No need for a gamma ray burst. All humans have 100 to 200 or so mutations that are not present in their parents. We may or may not pass on those mutations to our descendants. In cases where a mutation is passed on then it is possible that the mutation becomes ‘fixed’ in the population - every member of the population has it.

That population would then have a different version of that gene to all other mammals, who themselves might also have different versions.

The GULO gene is a part of the vitamin C synthesis system. Our copy is broken. IIRC one of the mutations is a stop codon early on in the gene. The other apes share this fault, the early stop codon at the same postion in the GULO pseudogene.

Guinea Pigs also have a broken GULO gene, but they have different errors in their pseudogene so it is highly probable that their broken gene is the result of a separate mutation event.

And let’s say you rossum 1 million years from now study this. What conclusion would you draw?

If the mutation had disappeared then there would be no evidence to draw any conclusion from. If the mutation were fixed then I would conclude that all individuals with that mutation were descended from the same ancestor, the one who first had the mutation. The ancestor could probably be dated by looking at the other differences in the pseudogene and the known mutation rate for pseudogenes. Natural selection does not act on pseudogenes so they mutate at the background mutation rate. It is work like this that allows us to estimate the dates that our lineage separated from the other apes.

rossum

 

[rossum]

The Holy See has taught that “some theories of evolution” are incompatible with the Catholic Faith.

Some, but not all. As to the GULO pseudogene, that is not philosophy but evidence. You can take a sample of your own DNA to a lab and have it sequenced, you will find your own GULO pseudogene there.

rossum

 

[031064]

Sorry, I must not have made this clear enough. I DO NOT want to be preached to about the pseudo science of creationsism. Thank you.

 

[rossum]

The Nishikimi et. al. paper is technical, and is typical of the kind of detailed evidence that supports evolution.

Another recent piece of evidence for human evolution from earlier primeates: Stanyon, R. M. Rocchi, O. Capozzi, R. Roberto, D. Misceo, M. Ventura, M. F. Cardone, F. Bigoni, and N. Archidiacono. 2008. Primate chromosome evolution: Ancestral karyotypes, marker order and neocentromeres. Chromosome Research (2008) 16:17–39

This one has some pretty coloured pictures, but is still somewhat technical. PDF here. To quote the abstract:These results allowed us to develop hypotheses about the content, marker order and centromere position in ancestral karyotypes at five major branching points on the primate evolutionary tree: ancestral primate, ancestral anthropoid, ancestral platyrrhine, ancestral catarrhine and ancestral hominoid. Current models suggest that between-species structural rearrangements are often intimately related to speciation. Comparative primate cytogenetics has become an important tool for elucidating the phylogeny and the taxonomy of primates. It has become increasingly apparent that molecular cytogenetic data in the future can be fruitfully combined with whole-genome assemblies to advance our understanding of primate genome evolution as well as the mechanisms
and processes that have led to the origin of the human genome.
I have noticed that some anti-evolutionists are not fully aware of the depth, detail and sheer volume of the evidence that supports the theory of evolution. This paper is just one recent example.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

No need for a gamma ray burst. All humans have 100 to 200 or so mutations that are not present in their parents. We may or may not pass on those mutations to our descendants. In cases where a mutation is passed on then it is possible that the mutation becomes ‘fixed’ in the population - every member of the population has it.

That population would then have a different version of that gene to all other mammals, who themselves might also have different versions.

The GULO gene is a part of the vitamin C synthesis system. Our copy is broken. IIRC one of the mutations is a stop codon early on in the gene. The other apes share this fault, the early stop codon at the same postion in the GULO pseudogene.

Guinea Pigs also have a broken GULO gene, but they have different errors in their pseudogene so it is highly probable that their broken gene is the result of a separate mutation event.

If the mutation had disappeared then there would be no evidence to draw any conclusion from. If the mutation were fixed then I would conclude that all individuals with that mutation were descended from the same ancestor, the one who first had the mutation. The ancestor could probably be dated by looking at the other differences in the pseudogene and the known mutation rate for pseudogenes. Natural selection does not act on pseudogenes so they mutate at the background mutation rate. It is work like this that allows us to estimate the dates that our lineage separated from the other apes.

rossum

But you didn’t answer the question. You did not address the question of a gamma ray burst.

 

[rossum]

But you didn’t answer the question. You did not address the question of a gamma ray burst.

A gamma ray burst is one possible cause of mutations. As I said humand have around 100 to 200 mutations each from various causes. The cause of a mutation is irrelevant to the future of that mutations. Neutral mutations (the majority) are subject to genetic drift. Deleterious mutations are eliminated by natural selection and beneficial mutations (rare) are increased by natural selection.

Perhaps I have misunderstood your question, could you rephrase it?

rossum

 

[buffalo]

A gamma ray burst is one possible cause of mutations. As I said humand have around 100 to 200 mutations each from various causes. The cause of a mutation is irrelevant to the future of that mutations. Neutral mutations (the majority) are subject to genetic drift. Deleterious mutations are eliminated by natural selection and beneficial mutations (rare) are increased by natural selection.

Perhaps I have misunderstood your question, could you rephrase it?

rossum

Suppose a gamma ray burst mutated the same common gene in humans and apes across the world.

What we would observe is the same mutation today in both humans and apes? Right?

 

[rossum]

Suppose a gamma ray burst mutated the same common gene in humans and apes across the world.

That would need a direct intervention from God. The odds against it are colossal. The human genome has 3 billion base pairs, copied into every cell of your body. The gamma ray burst would have to affect exactly the same base pair in one of the cells of the gonads of every human and ape alive. When those apes bred only eggs and spern from a mutated cell, not an unmutated cell, would have to meet. The numbers are against you.

What we would observe is the same mutation today in both humans and apes? Right?

Yes, an omnipotent God could make things look like that. The problem is, as Theodosius Dobzhansky said “It is easy to see the fatal flaw in all such notions. They are blasphemies, accusing God of absurd deceitfulness. This is as revolting as it is uncalled for.”

A Loki/Trickster god can do a lot of things, but I for one would not want to follow such a god.

rossum