Genetics and Neanderthals

[grannymh]

Egads, I am so glad I’m meeting with my spiritual director today.

Both of you are in my prayers as I like to think about God when I drive. I’m leaving on a two-hour drive shortly.

Blessings,
granny

 

[Ahimsa]

There seems to be quite a few knowledgable people discussing this. Can someone tell me if the first known life had DNA structures as complex as the single cell life forms that exist now?

We haven’t discovered the first living organisms yet: the earliest life forms found in the fossil record are bacteria, which are too complex to have been the first life forms. It is thought by many that life began when organic molecules began to replicate, and such molecules would be hard to find in the rocks that make up the fossil record, so we may never have fossils of the earliest forms of life or pre-life.

Having said that, it is thought by many that even though all organisms today have DNA as their central information molecule, the earliest life forms may have been essentially self-replicating proteins, and over time, these proteins were replaced with the more stable RNA molecule (which has protein- and DNA-type properties), and then, later, DNA was used, as even more stable than RNA.

 

[buffalo]

We haven’t discovered the first living organisms yet: the earliest life forms found in the fossil record are bacteria, which are too complex to have been the first life forms. It is thought by many that life began when organic molecules began to replicate, and such molecules would be hard to find in the rocks that make up the fossil record, so we may never have fossils of the earliest forms of life or pre-life.

Having said that, it is thought by many that even though all organisms today have DNA as their central information molecule, the earliest life forms may have been essentially self-replicating proteins, and over time, these proteins were replaced with the more stable RNA molecule (which has protein- and DNA-type properties), and then, later, DNA was used, as even more stable than RNA.

The odds against a protein randomly folding are astounding.

None of this explains the language of DNA.

 

[Ahimsa]

The odds against a protein randomly folding are astounding.

None of this explains the language of DNA.

God of the gaps?

 

[buffalo]

God of the gaps?

There will always be at least one gap or we would be God.

The issue is chance vs design. When the possible number of 3D protein folds exceed a certain threshold the reality is that the search target will be missed. When one keeps finding more and more of these happenings a rational person has to sooner or later acknowledge design.

 

[Ahimsa]

The issue is chance vs design.

There’s a third option: structure.

 

[buffalo]

There’s a third option: structure.

Please explain.

 

[Mudgely]

I am going to have absorb this for awhile. Thank you.

Don’t be snowed by pseudo science.

 

[Ahimsa]

Please explain.

You presented two options: chance (meaning, no lawful regularity or structure or design whatsoever) or design (a lawful regularity or structure consciously constructed by an intelligent biological organism). I offered a third: structure (a lawful regularity or structure not constructed by an intelligent biological organism).

 

[buffalo]

You presented two options: chance (meaning, no lawful regularity or structure or design whatsoever) or design (a lawful regularity or structure consciously constructed by an intelligent biological organism). I offered a third: structure (a lawful regularity or structure not constructed by an intelligent biological organism).

We do see patterns in nature. But we never see symbols, language or maps in nature. Language though always contains patterns. Language comes from a mind.

 

[grannymh]

You presented two options: chance (meaning, no lawful regularity or structure or design whatsoever) or design (a lawful regularity or structure consciously constructed by an intelligent biological organism). I offered a third: structure (a lawful regularity or structure not constructed by an intelligent biological organism).

Both an ant and an elephant would be an intelligent biological organism–intelligent meaning sentient as befitting the capability of a specific biological organism.
I doubt that is what is meant when it comes to the creation of the universe. Or the creation of yourself.

 

[HelenRose]

Don’t be snowed by pseudo science.

Don’t assume that I am stupid.

I listen to intelligent people and I learn and I think. I seldom qet snowed.

 

[grannymh]

So then whatorwhere**are the scientific conclusions that we’re the result of two founders of the human race? With so much opposition to the idea of polygenism, one would think that there’s some information out there from well respected scientists who believe in monogenism. No?

This type of scientific concern is common in our modernistic environment. Today, we are sure that we are meant to know everything about anything just like our Creator. This brings back memories of Satan’s convoluted temptation to “be like gods” which worked at the beginning of human history and continues to work today.

Today, we are like the people who listened to Jesus; we have to make a choice with the “coin” of our allegiance. Do we render to Caesar, the created, or to God, the Creator? (Matthew 22: 15-22) Do we put science, the creation, above its Creator?

One of the few religions which has not wavered or watered down the truth of Adam and Eve as sole founders of the human species, Catholicism bases its firm monogenism stand on Divine Revelation guided by the continual presence of the Holy Spirit. (John, Chapter 14)

To put it simply, all of its amazing discoveries and all of its benefits for humanity do not raise scientific conclusions to the level of Divine Revelation.

Jesus continually stands before us as the Light teaching us the way and the truth. Jesus, truly present in the Catholic Eucharist, reminds us of Divine Revelation. The “coin” of science, in itself is both good and limited within the material/physical world.
On the other hand, God is calling us to share in His divine life because we are *both *rational and corporeal, both spiritual soul *and *material anatomy.

Just like Adam before us, we have to make the same choice between God and creatures. Do we let our trust in God die in our heart? (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraph 397)

 

[HelenRose]

This type of scientific concern is common in our modernistic environment. It brings back memories of Satan’s convoluted temptation to “be like gods” which worked at the beginning of human history and continues to work today.

Today, we are sure that we are meant to know everything about anything just like our Creator. Today, we are like the people who listened to Jesus, we have to make a choice with the “coin” of our allegiance. Do we render to Caesar or to God? (Matthew 22: 15-22)

One of the few religions who have not wavered or watered down the truth of Adam and Eve as sole founders of the human species, Catholicism bases its firm monogenism stand on Divine Revelation guided by the continual presence of the Holy Spirit. (John, Chapter 14)

To put it simply, all of its amazing discoveries and all of its benefits for humanity do not raise scientific conclusions to the level of Divine Revelation.

Jesus continually stands before us as the Light teaching us the way and the truth. Jesus, truly present in the Catholic Eucharist, reminds us of Divine Revelation. The “coin” of science, in itself is both good and limited within the material/physical world.
On the other hand, God is calling us to share in His divine life because we are *both *rational and corporeal, both spiritual soul *and *material anatomy.

Just like Adam before us, we have to make the same choice between God and creatures. Do we let our trust in God die in our heart? (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraph 397)

Very well spoken.

 

[Ahimsa]

Both an ant and an elephant would be an intelligent biological organism–intelligent meaning sentient as befitting the capability of a specific biological organism.
I doubt that is what is meant when it comes to the creation of the universe. Or the creation of yourself.

It’s conceivable that, at some point, we humans will be able to consciously construct/design never-before-seen organisms from scratch (that is, starting with the assembling of DNA, and building from there). In such a scenario, the newly-designed organism will itself be a designed product of an intelligent biological organism.

 

[Ahimsa]

One of the few religions who have not wavered or watered down the truth of Adam and Eve as sole founders of the human species, Catholicism bases its firm monogenism stand on Divine Revelation guided by the continual presence of the Holy Spirit. (John, Chapter 14)

I haven’t seen where Catholicism precisely defines what “monogenism” means, in the context of human origins. The Catholic position on monogenism allows for two possibilities: (1) that Adam and Eve were both originally the only “true Men” alive, and the only Homo sapiens alive; or (2) Adam and Eve were originally the only “true Men” alive, but not the only Homo sapiens alive; and when Adam and Eve’s children mated with other Homo sapiens, their children were “true Men”, such that all humans today are “true Men”, being descended from Adam and Eve (as well as being descended from the other Homo sapiens). “Man” includes both men and women.]

Humani Generis leaves this issue open, as Jimmy Akin and other Catholic apologists, have indicated.

 

[grannymh]

I haven’t seen where Catholicism precisely defines what “monogenism” means, in the context of human origins. The Catholic position on monogenism allows for two possibilities: (1) that Adam and Eve were both originally the only “true Men” alive, and the only Homo sapiens alive; or (2) Adam and Eve were originally the only “true Men” alive, but not the only Homo sapiens alive; and when Adam and Eve’s children mated with other Homo sapiens, their children were “true Men”, such that all humans today are “true Men”, being descended from Adam and Eve (as well as being descended from the other Homo sapiens). “Man” includes both men and women.]

Humani Generis leaves this issue open, as Jimmy Akin and other Catholic apologists, have indicated.

Before I laugh about the comparison of some, not all, apologists with the Pontiff, it would be best if you would please present your definitions of Homo sapiens and Homo sapiens, sapiens.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

 

[HelenRose]

We haven’t discovered the first living organisms yet: the earliest life forms found in the fossil record are bacteria, which are too complex to have been the first life forms. It is thought by many that life began when organic molecules began to replicate, and such molecules would be hard to find in the rocks that make up the fossil record, so we may never have fossils of the earliest forms of life or pre-life.

Having said that, it is thought by many that even though all organisms today have DNA as their central information molecule, the earliest life forms may have been essentially self-replicating proteins, and over time, these proteins were replaced with the more stable RNA molecule (which has protein- and DNA-type properties), and then, later, DNA was used, as even more stable than RNA.

Let me think this through.

If a person is certain that “mere chance” is what drives evolution and life, then one has to assume that the first living organisms can not be as complex at the earliest known bacteria. To assume otherwise is to acknowledge that the odds are simply to great.

The basic premises are:

1: Mere Chance
or
2: Intelligence and Will

To the scientists on this thread? Do viruses have DNA?

 

[Ahimsa]

Before I laugh about the comparison of some, not all, apologists with the Pontiff, it would be best if you would please present your definitions of Homo sapiens and Homo sapiens, sapiens.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Your request will gladly be acknowledged.

I follow the commonly accepted definition(s) of Homo sapiens, which point to fossils dating back to around 500,000 as among the first Homo sapiens.

Homo sapiens sapiens would appear around 200,000 BCE.

 

[Ahimsa]

Let me think this through.

If a person is certain that “mere chance” is what drives evolution and life, then one has to assume that the first living organisms can not be as complex at the earliest known bacteria. To assume otherwise is to acknowledge that the odds are simply to great.

The basic premises are:

1: Mere Chance
or
2: Intelligence and Will

Those two are not the only choices.

“Mere chance” would make the universe itself impossible, or very, very unlikely. .The universe operates via great regularity; organism evolve with great regularity as well. However, there is a degree of “unknowability” in mutations and in events in general. “Mere [only] chance” really does not exist.

Do viruses have DNA?

Some viruses have DNA as their genetic material; other viruses have RNA instead of DNA.