Evolution is contradictory?

[Aloysium]

In fact as has been pointed out the Catholic Church allows the Holy Faithful to accept evolution.

Because for all the intensity of these arguments, it doesn’t matter as long as one is faithful.
It sounds as though you are not personally interested in knowing the truth.
You can, but it is important to keep an open mind.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

For people on both sides of this divide (I personally believe / believed in evolution), there has been a new study which throws the entire notion of evolution into question, and if it is verified by additional studies, will pretty much an end to the Darwinian model.

For the record, these conclusions were reached by people who entered the study positive that it would support their current model of evolution. The primary researcher fought hard against the conclusion his work presented. I encourage people on both sides of the argument to read through this article.

---

https://phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-survey-reveals-facets-evolution.html

For those who don’t have time to read the whole article, here’s the gist of it.

Mark Stoeckle and David Thaler did a comprehensive study on roughly five million DNA barcodes from over 100,000 species in order to study changes to the mitochondrial DNA. The expectation, if the current model of evolution is accurate, would be that large populations would result in greater variation due to naturally occurring mutations. This was not the case. Quite the opposite, no matter how large or how small the standard population of a species was, they found roughly the same level of mutation. This indicates that population size and diversity of environment have little effect on species development, a stance in direct conflict with current models.

An even more surprising find is that 90% of all species on Earth didn’t appear until the last 100,000-200,000 years ago. Rather than a gradual shift over millions of years, these findings indicate that new species develop rapidly to fill ecological holes, and that most of the species alive today developed alongside humans. This once again stands in direct conflict with current evolutionary models.

Lastly, they also found that there all species have very clear genetic boundaries. The way Thaler puts it is:

“If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies,” said Thaler. “They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space.”

Read more at: Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution

This also contradicts the current model for evolution, as it would mean that there is no cross-development, or splits in the evolutionary chains.

---

I am writing all of this as a person who firmly believed that the model of evolution I learned about in school was accurate. These researchers were very thorough, and did an exhaustive study. It is likely that further study would support their findings. Only time will tell, but it’s certainly something we need to be aware of as we debate this issue.

 

[Bradskii]

First up, one only gets genetic diversity if the environment for one group of organisms is sufficiently different to that of another to select for any changes in the genetic makeup which allows for an increased survival opportunity. If the environment is static then you wouldn’t expect any changes.

Secondly, as the environment changes significantly (as it has done over the last few hundred thousand years) then you would expect that those organisms that didn’t evolve would die out. That is exactly what is inferred by ‘the survival of the fittest’. Those who are not well ‘fitted’ to the environment die out. So what else would one expect to see during a period of great changes in the environment other than species coming into existence at that time. Hence almost all species would date from that time.

Thirdly, as the less well adapted organisms become extinct, then you would automatically and gradually lose any ‘intermediate’ species as time went by. Would anyone seriously suggest (apart from some creationists with a few sheep loose in the top paddock) that we would expect to see living examples of homo Heidleburgensis wandering the plains of Africa?

As one of the writers of the paper commented on the meaning of his findings: “The simplest interpretation is that life is always evolving…’

Gee. Stop the presses.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

First up, one only gets genetic diversity if the environment for one group of organisms is sufficiently different to that of another to select for any changes in the genetic makeup which allows for an increased survival opportunity. If the environment is static then you wouldn’t expect any changes.

Our environment hasn’t been static for the last 100,000 years, we’ve come out of an ice age in the last 11,000~ years, which would require massive adaptation. Furthermore, this library of DNA includes samples from species in differing climates (for species that do exist in multiple climates throughout the world).

Secondly, as the environment changes significantly (as it has done over the last few hundred thousand years) then you would expect that those organisms that didn’t evolve would die out. That is exactly what is inferred by ‘the survival of the fittest’. Those who are not well ‘fitted’ to the environment die out. So what else would one expect to see during a period of great changes in the environment other than species coming into existence at that time. Hence almost all species would date from that time.

Except for that there was no known extinction event at that time which would open up the playing field for new species to develop. The last ice age started roughly 2.6 million years ago, which is when you would expect to see these new species start to develop, as openings in the food chain are created by species which fail to adapt.

Thirdly, as the less well adapted organisms become extinct, then you would automatically and gradually lose any ‘intermediate’ species as time went by. Would anyone seriously suggest (apart from some creationists with a few sheep loose in the top paddock) that we would expect to see living examples of homo Heidleburgensis wandering the plains of Africa?

Even as the less adapted species went extinct, that wouldn’t change their common originating species, assuming Darwin’s model is accurate. You would still see commonalities between similar species which supposedly evolved from a common ancestor. Those commonalities do not appear to be present.

As one of the writers of the paper commented on the meaning of his findings: “The simplest interpretation is that life is always evolving…’

Gee. Stop the presses.

I agree. I’m not trying to say that this disproves evolution, only that our current models may be wrong, and if this is accurate, the assumed rate of evolution could be very wrong. In terms of the geological time scale, having entirely new species develop in as little as a hundred thousand years is basically spontaneous.

It certainly requires more study and corroboration, but it does have the potential to have far-reaching implications in terms of our current understanding.

 

[misstherese]

I’ve taken a look at the book you mention and it sounds to me like he is approaching this not scientifically really, but philosophically, which he is well capable of doing, considering his background as a professor of Dogmatic and Moral Theology and Philosophy at Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary. He also has a Ph.D. in philosophy and a master’s degree in theology.

I think he’s taking on more of an Aquinas style, and what he’s arguing against is the evolution theory without god in the equation.

 

[goout]

Someone I know is pushing a book by a FSSP priest, Chad Ripperger, in which Ripperger claims evolution is incompatible with Catholicism and is intrinsically incoherent. As both a Catholic and scientist, I find this hard to accept. He appeals to something called first causes, of which I admittedly know next to nothing, but tries to philosophize his audience into disregarding the scientific validity of the theory. Is there any clarity to be found here?

It’s shocking to find a Catholic priest contradicting explicit expressions of Magisterial thought, as expressed by two 20th century Popes, one of whom is a saint.

 

[Bradskii]

The last ice age started roughly 2.6 million years ago, which is when you would expect to see these new species start to develop…

The last ice age only finished around 10,000 years ago which means that those organisms that survived the ice age would need to evolve or die when it ended. Hence most of those that survived exist as species from that time.

And to suggest that there is no commonality between species, however distant, is to deny evolution itself. You can’t say that you tend to agree with a theory and then announce that you reject its basic premise.

This ain’t rocket science.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

The last ice age only finished around 10,000 years ago which means that those organisms that survived the ice age would need to evolve or die when it ended. Hence most of those that survived exist as species from that time.

Yes, but they didn’t show up until roughly 100,000 years ago. That would mean that some new cataclysm had to happen in the middle of the ice age which we have no record of. Without that event, we would be seeing a relative genetic age of 2.6 million years.

And to suggest that there is no commonality between species, however distant, is to deny evolution itself. You can’t say that you tend to agree with a theory and then announce that you reject its basic premise.

This ain’t rocket science.

I’m not suggesting it, that’s what the person who did the study found.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

The last ice age only finished around 10,000 years ago which means that those organisms that survived the ice age would need to evolve or die when it ended. Hence most of those that survived exist as species from that time.

Yes, but they didn’t show up until roughly 100,000 years ago. That would mean that some new cataclysm had to happen in the middle of the ice age which we have no record of. Without that event, we would be seeing a relative genetic age of 2.6 million years.

And to suggest that there is no commonality between species, however distant, is to deny evolution itself. You can’t say that you tend to agree with a theory and then announce that you reject its basic premise.

This ain’t rocket science.

I’m not suggesting it, that’s what the person who did the study found.

You are missing something here. If the last ice FINISHED 10,000 years ago, then that is when new species would be expected to have evolved.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

You are missing something here. If the last ice FINISHED 10,000 years ago, then that is when new species would be expected to have evolved.

Both of our statements are true. Although we’re assuming we’ve already reached the end of the post-ice age extinction event, which may not necessarily be true.

The fact is that we see these species emerge 100,000 years ago, and if current evolutionary models are accurate, that would require something to happen which would open up new gaps in the food chain which could be filled by these new species. We have no record of any event 100,000 years ago which only left 10% of the world’s species intact. That would seem to indicate that present evolutionary models are incorrect, and that something else governs the development of species.

 

[rossum]

An even more surprising find is that 90% of all species on Earth didn’t appear until the last 100,000-200,000 years ago.

Two points here. They were looking at mitochondrial DNA, so their dates are the date of each species’ equivalent of Mitochondrial Eve. The actual date of origin of the species was probably earlier; it is highly unlikely that M-Eve was the first female member of the species.

Secondly, they only looked at existing species; extinct species go a lot further back.

Certainly an interesting study, but it does not say everything that some commentators say.

rossum

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Excuse me?

You have fallen for the biggest polarised argument. People who subscribe to this argument go for the either/ or. Scenario.

People falling for this argument have negated God’s creation and ongoing hand in it.

 

[Aloysium]

It’s shocking to find a Catholic priest contradicting explicit expressions of Magisterial thought, as expressed by two 20th century Popes, one of whom is a saint.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Such delicate sensibilities.

I would ask you to support your claim.

For example, here are some excerpts from the catechism:

Catechesis on creation is of major importance. It concerns the very foundations of human and Christian life: for it makes explicit the response of the Christian faith to the basic question that men of all times have asked themselves: “Where do we come from?” “Where are we going?” “What is our origin?” “What is our end?” “Where does everything that exists come from and where is it going?” The two questions, the first about the origin and the second about the end, are inseparable. They are decisive for the meaning and orientation of our life and actions.He is “the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake”, and he alone is called to share, by knowledge and love, in God’s own life. It was for this end that he was created, and this is the fundamental reason for his dignity.

This is why we are discussing this topic.

The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers.

Probably this is what you were thinking about, although it does not say anything about the theory of evolution.

Pointing to a reality far greater than that imagined by evolutionary philosophers, are the following from the Catechism:

Death is a consequence of sin. The Church’s Magisterium, as authentic interpreter of the affirmations of Scripture and Tradition, teaches that death entered the world on account of man’s sin. Even though man’s nature is mortal God had destined him not to die. Death was therefore contrary to the plans of God the Creator and entered the world as a consequence of sin. “Bodily death, from which man would have been immune had he not sinned” is thus “the last enemy” of man left to be conquered.
Death is transformed by Christ. Jesus, the Son of God, also himself suffered the death that is part of the human condition. Yet, despite his anguish as he faced death, he accepted it in an act of complete and free submission to his Father’s will. The obedience of Jesus has transformed the curse of death into a blessing.

I don’t know how this, our belief in monogenism and man’s original immortal nature can be reconciled with an evolutionary understandiing of our origins.

 

[Aloysium]

More quotes for those interested:

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”: three things are affirmed in these first words of Scripture: the eternal God gave a beginning to all that exists outside of himself; he alone is Creator. The totality of what exists depends on the One who gives it being.

We believe that God needs no pre-existent thing or any help in order to create, nor is creation any sort of necessary emanation from the divine substance. God creates freely “out of nothing”

Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man. Because of man, creation is now subject “to its bondage to decay”. Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will “return to the ground”, for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history.

Man’s sins, following on original sin, are punishable by death.

St. Paul tells us that the human race takes its origin from two men: Adam and Christ. . . The first man, Adam, he says, became a living soul, the last Adam a life-giving spirit. The first Adam was made by the last Adam, from whom he also received his soul, to give him life. . . The second Adam stamped his image on the first Adam when he created him. That is why he took on himself the role and the name of the first Adam, in order that he might not lose what he had made in his own image. The first Adam, the last Adam: the first had a beginning, the last knows no end. The last Adam is indeed the first; as he himself says: “I am the first and the last.”

Because of its common origin the human race forms a unity, for “from one ancestor [God] made all nations to inhabit the whole earth”

By the radiance of this grace all dimensions of man’s life were confirmed. As long as he remained in the divine intimacy, man would not have to suffer or die.

 

[Aloysium]

Excuse me?

You have fallen for the biggest polarised argument. People who subscribe to this argument go for the either/ or. Scenario.

People falling for this argument have negated God’s creation and ongoing hand in it.

I don’t really get what you are saying. I’m presenting my perspective on a matter that has great if not the greatest of importance. It addresses who we are, why we are and speaks to the very relationship we have with the Ground of our existence. That understanding, as an important part of our relationship with God, will impact on our choices, which in turn determine who we are for eternity. You might want to try and read some of my posts before commenting on what you think I am doing. They tend to be long, and I do understand that most people using these sorts of formats, want to have their say, rather than listen.

 

[goout]

goout:

It’s shocking to find a Catholic priest contradicting explicit expressions of Magisterial thought, as expressed by two 20th century Popes, one of whom is a saint.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Such delicate sensibilities.

I would ask you to support your claim.

I think you know better. You have participated in these discussions in the past and know full well the standard documents that are cited.
Making people jump through hoops to present well known information is …what?
So if I cite the documents and statements from Pius and JP2, you are going to use them as punching bags.

I won’t bite.

 

[Aloysium]

So if I cite the documents and statements from Pius and JP2, you are going to use them as punching bags.

The “punching bag” would be any interpretation that suggests they were advocating for randomness, utilitarianism, materialism, polygenism, and any philosophical (because that’s what we are talking about rather than actual science) leanings that go against the revealed truth as articulated by the Church.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

We are fully able to engage in our relationship with Christ and acknowledge His creation and His evolution. It’s not a polarised argument.

Look at how everything evolves,

I read your posts, I read this

It sounds as though you are not personally interested in knowing the truth.

Care to explain that

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Two points here. They were looking at mitochondrial DNA, so their dates are the date of each species’ equivalent of Mitochondrial Eve. The actual date of origin of the species was probably earlier; it is highly unlikely that M-Eve was the first female member of the species.

Secondly, they only looked at existing species; extinct species go a lot further back.

Certainly an interesting study, but it does not say everything that some commentators say.

rossum

I follow all of this, that’s not the point. The point is that 90% of the species we have now all emerged around 100,000 years ago. That’s the remarkable aspect of this. Rather than developing at different intervals, as you would expect since change happens at different rates in different areas of the planet, everything sort of popped up all at once.

 

[rossum]

90% of the species we have now all emerged around 100,000 years ago.

No. Their M-Eves were alive between 200,000 and 100,000 years ago. In almost every case the species will have originated earlier. For example, cheetahs has a severe genetic bottleneck, down to a single family, about 10,000 years ago. Their M-Eve will date from 10,000 years ago. However, the species had been in existence for a long time before then.

As I say, do not read too much into this study.

rossum