Evolution: Is There Any Good Reason To Reject The Abiogenesis Hypothesis?

[Gorgias]

Consider that everything has a soul.

Pick nits much?

OK, so modify @rossum’s statement to say explicitly what he was attempting to communicate to you:
First_rossum_and_now_my_additions:

Palaeontologists cannot tell which of these various species had eternal souls created in the image and likeness of God – souls do not fossilise and do not have a particular DNA sequence.

I mean, you could have gleaned this from his next line: “which specific pair [of hominins] were given souls by God cannot be determined.” If all creatures have souls (vegetative, animal, or human), then the only inference you can glean from his assertion is that he’s talking about the immortal soul that God gives only to humans.

Or, you could look at his following paragraph, in which he makes it explicit and perfectly clear: “the Pope talks about ‘true humans’, which I take to mean biological humans with human souls.”

[Homo neanderthalensis, Homo denisova, and Homo sapiens] would not have emerged from previous nonhumans

Let’s be precise. Are you saying that God directly created hominins nearly physically identical with us?

, and human beings do not mate with animals.

We most certainly do. The animals with whom we mate these days just also happen to have eternal souls.

Thdere was one first man, who became two, from whom we all emerged as offspring.

Yep. That’s the theological explanation, all right. Doesn’t mean that there isn’t a corresponding scientific explanation which fits the extant evidence and nevertheless doesn’t contradict the theological explanation…

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

Everything could be supernatural.

Everything could be said to be supernatural in the sense that everything is brought into existence, from the beginning to the end of time, from eternity. This does not imply pantheism, in the sense that the universe is Divine, but that it arises through a Divine Act of creation, from what is Existence itself. That existence is within and encompasses everything while remaining outside creation, relating to it as Father.

Nobody is being tricky, we are doing it to ourselves, trying to find answers neglecting the Truth itself.

I literaly just responded to someone when I said that I generally ignore those who post comments that capitalise words such as Divine and Act and Existence and Truth.

Nuff said.

 

[buffalo]

I have no problem with punctuated equilibrium if that is what you mean by EES.

Are you not up to speed on this?

 

[rossum]

Are you not up to speed on this?

Enlighten me. We can find punctuated equilibrium in Darwin:

But I must here remark that I do not suppose that the process ever goes on so regularly as is represented in the diagram, though in itself made somewhat irregular, nor that it goes on continuously; it is far more probable that each form remains for long periods unaltered, and then again undergoes modification.

• Origin, 6th Ed. Chapter Four

Are you saying that you agree with Darwin here?

 

[buffalo]

Enlighten me. We can find punctuated equilibrium in Darwin:

Now you are claiming PE is the same as EES?

 

[Pattylt]

Sorry, but what is EES?

 

[buffalo]

Sorry, but what is EES?

Extended Evolutionary Synthesis - it is needed because of the new findings of evolution.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspb.2015.1019

 

[buffalo]

https://royalsociety.org/science-events-and-lectures/2016/11/evolutionary-biology/

 

[Pattylt]

What do they mean by developmental bias? Can you explain? Thanks.

 

[Aloysium]

Your thanks are rejected. I did not post “myth”.

I have made it very clear in numerous posts that I consider it a myth.

The concept of evolution is based on a certain cosmology, that I do not share. This includes the belief that the materials used to form living beings are primary to their existence, that randomness in the chemical reactions plays a significant role in the diversity of life, which it is assumed is determined primarily by the utilitarian principle of survivability. Rather, life is an expression of the beauty and harmony found in its Creator. One should bear in mind that this has been disrupted by sin, the presence of dukkha, in Buddhist terms, has been been explained as a result of an initial fall of the angels, who act as God’s messengers and subsequently, we ourselves. There exists a greater truth that this vale of tears, and through us all creation journeys, in Christ to the final re-establishment of the order willed by God. Random change and natural selection are inherent in this world as the faces of death. They by no means are creative forces.

The idea of evolution is presented through stories of heroic acts done by superheros from outer space and genetic mutation, or regular people made powerful by technology. It provides us with a sense of purpose and meaning. In the face of all the horror and our own personal physical deterioration through the course of our lives unto death, it provides hope that things are getting better, politically, economically and in terms of our becoming ever smarter. Of course there is a preponderance of dystopic visions, which reflect the fears of what we understand to be advancement. It is througyh these mythic stories that we absorb this sense of who we are and our place in the universe.

It must be repeated that a creationist perspective, able to explain existence not only in terms of the science, but also includes the psychological and the spiritual aspects, is much better at making known to us our place in the universe.

 

[Aloysium]

The evidence of human DNA shows that there has not been a population bottleneck as narrow as a single couple since before our ancestors split from our LCA with the chimpanzees. Our DNA shows that our ancestral population has not dropped below about 10,000 breeding pairs since that separation from the chimpanzee line. DNA cannot show how many of those ancestors had souls.

These are based on specific assumptions as to how this works. It would not include what we have been told is that people at the beginning lived ten times longer than they do now in good health and able to procreate. Any viral inclusions in siminans that we share in our DNA are as equally explainable as a vulnerability in specific sutes of DNA and also that we are prone to the same viral infections.

 

[Aloysium]

Aloysium:

It’s totally imaginable that it’s engineered in such a way that life was guaranteed to develop.

That, ahem, would be called intelligent design. Are you now a subscriber?

I don’t think ID goes far enough. Reality includes a loving God from whom all things come. What He has created, the way I see things, is different living forms - cats, people, geraniums, bacteria and pelicans. All life that exists now had a forebear that was the first of its kind. What is involved in the bringing into existence of a kind of thing, involves more than a reshaping of material components, which themselves had to be created earlier in time. I would like to see the basics, such as genetics, chemistry and physics taught in the classroom, the stuff that we actually use. The Theory of Evolution is as much pseudoscience as is ID, and I don’t see a place for either one except perhaps in religious studies.

 

[buffalo]

These are based on specific assumptions as to how this works.

Yes they are indeed.

 

[buffalo]

What do they mean by developmental bias? Can you explain? Thanks.

There is a section on it:

(a) Evolutionary developmental biology https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspb.2015.1019​

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

So, the climate change only affected the trees , and not the grass?

Have you ever tried to grow grass under 100% tree cover? Grass needs direct sunlight; trees block direct sunlight. Why do you think that there is minimal, if any, grass underfoot in woods. The grass only grows in the clearings. Are you really so unobservant?

I know it couldn’t have been a drought , because the grass is first to go in a drought …so what kind of climate change was this ?

You are right, it wasn’t drought: Browsing antelope turned ancient African forests into grassy savanna ecosystems.

So, the “climate change” was actually Antelope who ate up all the trees,which cause the grass to grow.This meant only apes that could evolve fast grass running two legs,and outrun Lions could make it to the nearest trees would survive to become Man one day, is that how it worked ?

 

[buffalo]

This too is important:

Rocking the foundations of biology​

Here it is again - top down - DNA is not the sole transmitter of inheritance - paper after paper is now showing the inheritance epigenetic information - information is the driver.

A major revolution is occurring in evolutionary biology. In this video the President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences, Professor Denis Noble, explains what is happening and why it is set to change the nature of biology and of the importance of physiology to that change. The lecture was given to a general audience at a major international Congress held in Suzhou China. The implications of the change extend far beyond biology itself.

Loading…

idvolution.blogspot.com

 

[Aloysium]

I literaly just responded to someone when I said that I generally ignore those who post comments that capitalise words such as Divine and Act and Existence and Truth.

Nuff said.

The Subject, to which everything I am is object, is deserving of respect.

Actually, within that relationship, which encompasses every aspect of our day, we do more, as we burn with fervour, reaching out to Him. There’s a prayer I came across on a site by a Peter Adam, a portion of which reads:

To you all angels cry aloud; all the powers of heaven; to you Cherubim and Seraphim sing in endless praise, Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of hosts; Heaven and earth are full of the majesty of your glory. The glorious company of apostles praise you. The goodly fellowship of prophets praise you. The noble army of martyrs praise you. The holy Church throughout all the world acclaims you; Father of an infinite Majesty; your true and only Son, worthy of all praise; and the Holy Spirit the Comforter.

I would expect there would be communication barriers in our discussions.

 

[Aloysium]

Pick nits much?

OK, so modify @rossum’s statement to say explicitly what he was attempting to communicate to you:

First_rossum_and_now_my_additions:

I think I understood what he was trying to say. I usually merely state my position, to make clear where I stand, not necessarily to deny what the other person is saying. If I think it is wrong, I say it.

Are you saying that God directly created hominins nearly physically identical with us?

I think that would be what is implied since they are. We share 98% of our genes with chimpanzees, 92% with a mouse, 44% with a fruitfly, so I’d say at a molecular level we are very much the same as all other living forms, created to be so by God.

The animals with whom we mate these days just also happen to have eternal souls.

We are not animals; we just look like and may behave like them.

I want to make clear that I respect your opinion. I am presenting my vision of things, trying to explain as best I can, their basis.

 

[IWantGod]

I think that would be what is implied since they are. We share 98% of our genes with chimpanzees, 92% with a mouse, 44% with a fruitfly, so I’d say at a molecular level we are very much the same as all other living forms, created to be so by God.

And yet you neglect the obvious implication of that, and would prefer to think that God directly constructs distinct kinds of organisms with shared genes for no reason other than to give our senses the illusion of biological interdependency and connection. Anything but a biological tree of life in which we are only one branch.

I guess that is just too much for you to fathom. The unity and interdependency of all biological forms is to me not unlike something God would produce since we all live together after-all, and we are even called upon to look after nature. Your version of reality would imply that by directly creating the physical nature of humanity, we are something entirely alien being inserted into nature, and i say this in the sense that in this case we would not have a natural unity with the biological order that we are in; only a manufactured illusion of one. In fact the entire biological order would be a manufactured illusion.

 

[buffalo]

I think that would be what is implied since they are. We share 98% of our genes with chimpanzees

Nope - that is now between 92% on the high end and around 80% on the low end.

In any case, it is the cell that drives the genes not the other way around as was thought in the past.