Myth of evolution and new drug discovery

[SonofMonica]

Well I’m definitely glad to see you’re at least reading up on the subjects you’re talking about; that is more than can be said with most people I deal with. However, I might suggest some less biased literature, like Einstein’s original papers, or even just a good physics textbook. Not that the books you mentioned aren’t credible, but the facts are presented in certain ways as to imply certain arguments. Most any author would purposely leave out any counterexamples to the point he is trying to make. For example, if you know GR, you may (actually you will) reach some unexpected conclusions about the nature of gravity. But if you only read a book on it, written by a Christian author, you will only understand the areas which back up the author’s claim. Just a suggestion, and I’ll say it again, I’m glad there are still people out there who don’t argue something without first studying it.

Well, none of the books I’ve listed are about GR or QM. I’ve never read a religious book about science. I have read scientific books about religion, and found them way off the mark. So I’d imagine I’d get royally pissed at fundamentalist religious types trying to explain science to me as though I were an impressionable homeschooler.

Maybe your suggestion to read non-Christian books about science was to people in general, in which case I would join in your suggestion.

Oh, I just realized the title of “Is God a Mathematician?” and the reference to general relativity may have caused you to think it was a religious book about science. Not at all. Here, let me give you the Amazon.com blurb (just noticed I got the author’s name wrong the first time):
Amazon.com:

The title of astrophysicist Livio’s latest wide-ranging science survey is a teaser since God rarely makes an appearance; along with the French astronomer Laplace, Livio has no need of that hypothesis. Rather, Livio (The Golden Ratio) is concerned with the contentious question: is mathematics a human invention? Or is it the intricate design of the universe that we are slowly discovering? Scientists in past centuries have argued for the latter, Platonist position. In the last 50 years, however, many scientists, calling into question the whole idea of scientific discovery, maintain that we have invented mathematics. Livio gives as one example the famous golden ratio, which has fascinated Western mathematicians for millennia and was originally emphasized for its mystical symbolism. But Chinese mathematicians, not sharing that outlook, didn’t discover it—or maybe they just didn’t need to invent it. Livio hedges his bets, unsatisfyingly arguing that mathematics is partly discovered and partly invented. But Livio is a smooth writer. His fans will enjoy this book, and new ones may discover him.

 

[SonofMonica]

There is a condensed version of the books you are reading that you might be interested in. It’s titled, The Fathers Play the Inner Game of Tennis in a Labyrinth Supported by the Pillars of the Earth While God, a Mathematician, Keeps Score.

I bet you try that with all the ladies. :flowers: (too bad, I’m a dude… )

 

[itinerant1]

I bet you try that with all the ladies. :flowers: (too bad, I’m a dude… )

Duh! I figured from your handle SonofMonica. Don’t feel “too bad” if your a dude. Being male is a good thing. I’m right proud of my masculinity.

 

[SonofMonica]

Duh! I figured from your handle SonofMonica. Don’t feel “too bad” if your a dude. Being male is a good thing. I’m right proud of my masculinity.

Okay, this after hours CAF chat is taking a turn for the worse…:dts:

 

[John_Pascendi]

Looking at evolution another way…lets see,walking along a pathway I spy an object…bending over to pick it up its somekind of timekeeper…a watch I think they call it! Opening up the back I see all sorts of tiny wheels ,moving in directions,held to gether by tiny screws etc…golly gee I wonder to myself…this little object just somehow came together by itself,there was no one around to make it I am sure…just by accident…oh well, (yawn) back to the sofa and come on Packers!!! (this was one of the examples I used for my students in communiation class…re: our universe) all the best…Pas

 

[reggieM]

Now, you can choose to ignore that evidence, or you can take a step back and decide what that could teach you about the world you believe God created. Do you think he’s trying to trick you? To test your faith? Will you call it an atheist conspiracy and ignore the evidence? Or will you adjust your beliefs to fit to reality instead of trying to adjust reality to fit to your beliefs?

At least you admit that there is a conflict between evolutionary claims and the Catholic faith. Your solution to this would be for the Catholic to deny the faith in order to embrace evolutionary speculations.

Many Catholics abandonded the faith for this kind of evolutionary lie:

From evolutionist, Wilhelm Boelsche’s, Evolution of Man:

should not the embryo of mammals, reptiles and birds show at least traces of a tadpole or fish stage in the mother’s womb, or in the egg? It is the most remarkable proof of the reliability of the biogenetic law that this is actually the case… The embryo of human being at a certain stage is likewise provided with traces of gills on its neck and with fin-like disks in the places where arms and legs develop later on. This is as universally accepted as the fact first stated by Copernicus that the earth revolves around the sun. No man who has the least respect for truth can deny this fact. Nevertheless, there are people who find this very plain fact of embryology very little to their liking, and who therefore frequently attempt to brand it as a “falsification.” But every university text-book in the hands of every student of medicine, which is used as a basis for the state examinations, contains a statement of this simple fact, and if any student were to deny it during his examination he would be severely reprimanded by the state examiner. People who still refer to such undeniable and scientifically recognized facts as falsifications place themselves outside the pale of all moral premises and scientific research.

So again, this was claimed as a “universally accepted fact”. He says exactly what evolutionists today say – that some find this “fact” not to their liking. But every student is forced to repeat the evolutionary myth or else be reprimanded.

Now today, we hear the same thing. Supposedly, evolutionary conjectures are all true now and Catholics should abandon their faith in order to embrace the latest claims. Nobody should pay any attention to the fact that evolutionary claims are invented and dismissed on a monthly basis.

Satan is clever and he will work endlessly to get people to abandon the teaching of Christ. Evolution has been an excellent weapon for him – and many remain tempted today to pit evolutionary fantasies against the revealed teaching of God.

All that said, again – it’s very good that you were clear about the opposition of evolutionary theory and faith – and you show that people have to choose between the two.

 

[reggieM]

Evolutionary theory does not claim that humans are the blind, unintelligent, natural processes acting on matter. Read something by Dawkins, that should clarify your misunderstanding of natural selection.

Rather than my needing to read Dawkins, it might be good for you to read what I said. I didn’t say that human beings were processes.

 

[reggieM]

We’re big on “matter.” Matter matters precisely because it can’t be separated from the supernatural, when it is the literal handiwork of God. I can’t separate the natural from the spiritual, because I’m not God.

That’s exactly right – and it’s precisely (although not the only reason) why evolutionary theory is false. It claims to explain the origin and development of human beings without regard to the supernatural aspect of man (which cannot be the product of nature – again, de fide Catholic doctrine).

Spirituality is natural, and science has proven it. We can see how spiritual thoughts affect our brainwaves.

Ok, this will need a little more work to clarify. While spirit and nature are united in man, for example, and the supernatural acts on the natural, affects it, shapes it, organizes it … the supernatural is not a product of nature. Inert matter does not produce supernatural essences. They can only come directly from God – because they transcend nature.

It permeates the universe, regardless of one’s own spirituality or relationship with God. When we say it is natural for marriage to be between a man and a woman, we mean that is God’s way. When we say sin is disordered or goes against nature, we mean it goes against God’s nature.

I think you’re mostly on the right track. But the conflict comes in where evolution claims to define what human beings are – and it does this without reference to the supernatural, immortal soul, which is the “form” of human beings. Evolutionary processes cannot generate the supernatural aspect of man. This is Catholic doctrine and it just stands to reason. That which transcends nature cannot be produced by nature.

So, there is something much more to human life than what the evolutionist claims. Evolutionary theory diminishes human life – not only bringing it to the level of animals (humans are slighly modified apes, etc), but that human beings emerged through natural processes alone. There is no distinction between human and ape, for example, except for some mutations in the genetic structure – purely natural distinctions.

Some will claim that evolution does not need to talk about the soul (since science can not reference the supernatural, supposedly) – and that the soul was just “added on” to the evolution of man without having any noticable impact in evolutionary terms.

This renders the rational, free, immortal soul of man to be something of little to no import – and something for which there is no evidence that it exists.

The Catholic teaching, however, is that the soul is the source of rationality and free-will and it provides the radical and infinite difference between man and animal.

 

[liquidpele]

At least you admit that there is a conflict between evolutionary claims and the Catholic faith. Your solution to this would be for the Catholic to deny the faith in order to embrace evolutionary speculations.

I said *your *faith, not the Catholic faith in general. Maybe you do think the Catholic faith is not compatible, but plenty here would disagree with that so I’m not really inclined to take your word for it and from what I’ve read I don’t see why you would insist that it would be beyond that perhaps you choose to take certain parts of the bible literally.

 

[reggieM]

One can easily respond that despite the flawed theological and philosophical beliefs of these few individuals, there still remains sound theories of theistic evolution.

The individuals I was considering are very prominent and well-known. But yes, there are certainly others that I don’t know about.

Also, I stated that there are theories (plural) of theistic evolution. That is, there are a variety of theories of theistic evolution, theories of which you are apparently unfamiliar with. Nonetheless, you would discount them all, even though you have no familiarity with them, because they happen not to be ID.

No – not because they happen not to be ID, but because they are contradictory for the reasons I gave. But beyond that, there may be a very large variety of theories of theistic evolution out there and you’re right, I haven’t evaluated them all. But for the sake of summarizing, I’m just referring to the most commonly known ideas under the title of theistic evolution.

Of course, the same can be said of ID. There are many views on ID theory – and it’s difficult to be aware of them all. But you tend to sweep away ID theory based on what you know about it. I have already shown the foundation of ID theory tracing back to the earliest eras of Catholic history.

Here is one of many, many examples that could be provided. From the classic text, The Catechism Explained, by Spirago:

We infer, when we see footprints in the snow, that some one has passed that way; so we infer from the things around us that there exists a supreme Being. The planets could no more have come into existence of themselves than a town could be built of itself. … We may also infer the existence of God from the creatures on the earth. Thus Job says ” Ask now the beasts and they shall teach thee ; and the birds of the air, and they shall tell thee. Speak to the earth and it shall answer thee; and the fishes of the sea shall tell. Who is ignorant that the hand of the Lord hath made all these things ? ” (Job xii. 7-9.) If any one were to find a beautiful marble statue on a desert island, he would say without any hesitation that men had been there. If one were to say that the wind and rain had torn it from the mountain side, and given it its form, we should count him as a fool. A greater fool is he who asserts that this wondrous world had no Creator.
The wonderful arrangement and order of the world also leads us to infer that it has been framed by an Architect of surpassing skill.
… In all that is upon the earth **we see traces of design **and of a most wise Designer in the construction of the bodies of animals, and of the bodies of men, in the -succession of the seasons, in trees and plants. The adaptation of means to ends in the human eye, the ear, and the various parts of the body, all imply an adapting intelligence, just as the adaptation of a watch to indicate the time, or the building of a house to shelter us, implies an intelligent constructor. As it would be impossible that the letters of the alphabet should be grouped together by mere chance in the order of the ” Iliad,” so it is impossible that the arrangements of the universe could have come about by chance, and without the knowledge and direction of a mighty intelligence.

So, please look at that text carefully. The design argument is spelled out clearly. Note, this is not merely an argument from a metaphysical order where things act for a purpose. This is the ID argument that “infers design from observations in nature”.

So, it’s strange to hear you claim that this kind of apologetic is false or wrong. We can even see it in the text of the Summa – while St. Thomas did not use it primarily in his proofs for the existence of God – he assumed it and stated it explicitly here:

From the Summa Theologica on the question on The Government of Things (q 103, article 1):

[Refuting the claim that the world is governed by chance] “First, by observation of things themselves: for we observe that in nature things happen always or nearly always for the best; which would not be the case unless some sort of providence directed nature towards good as an end; which is to govern. Wherefore the unfailing order we observe in things is a sign of their being governed; for instance, if we enter a well-ordered house we gather therefrom the intention of him that put it in order, as Tullius says (De Nat. Deorum ii), quoting Aristotle [Cleanthes]. ”

Notice there again – it’s like a “well-ordered house”. That shows “intention” – and that is radically different than what chance or unguided processes produce.

That’s the ID argument. Dr. Peter Kreeft makes this crystal-clear again.

Peter Kreeft — Handbook of Christian Apologetics page 5.
The Design Argument
This sort of argument is of wide and perennial appeal. Almost everyone admits that reflection on the order and beauty of nature touches something very deep within us. But are the order and beauty of the product of **intelligent design **and conscious purpose? For theists the answer is yes. Arguments for design are attempts to vindicate this answer; to show why it is the most reasonable one to give. They have been formulated in ways as richly varied as the experience in which they are rooted. The following displays the core or central insight.

1. The universe displays a staggering amount of intelligibility, both within the things we observe and in the way these things relate to others outside themselves. That is to say **the way they exist and coexist display an intricately beautiful order and regularity **that can fill even the most casual observer with wonder. It is the norm in nature for many different beings to work together to produce the same valuable end—for example, the organs in the body work for our life and health. (See also argument 8.)
2. Either this intelligible order is the product of chance or of intelligent design.
3. Not chance.
4. Therefore the universe is the product of intelligent design.
5. Design comes only from a mind, a designer.

So, itinerant1, you are very much opposed to ID theory for whatever reasons, and I can respect that. I would never, and could never endorse or give blanket support for any and every idea that is proposed under the ID banner. For me, even the terminology Intelligent Design Theory is not the important thing – I’m not arguing in favor of a movement or a philosophical or theological school of thought. For me, ID is as I presented above – observations of the design (specified functionally complex coordinated features) found in nature and the inference that intelligence is the only known cause of such things.

 

[reggieM]

I said *your *faith, not the Catholic faith in general. Maybe you do think the Catholic faith is not compatible, but plenty here would disagree with that so I’m not really inclined to take your word for it and from what I’ve read I don’t see why you would insist that it would be beyond that perhaps you choose to take certain parts of the bible literally.

If you’re saying that your understanding of the Catholic Faith is not well-informed enough for you to give worthwhile opinions on it, then I’d agree with that.

 

[grannymh]

Of course the mathematics of reproduction is that mammalian species often have stable population sizes that fluctuate about a mean for hundreds of generations. This happens because even though a fertile couple can and do have more than two offspring, a) not all live births survive to adulthood, b) of those that do, not all are fertile or succeed in reproducing for various reasons, c) occasional disastrous events such as floods, famine, accident and disease wipe out whole families or sub-populations.

It is my understanding that the term breeding pairs accounts for all of the above.

If populations steadily increased they would reach astronomic proportions in not very many generations - on the whole, unless conditions become peculiarly favourable for a particular trade, the deaths of those who do not reproduce or who have only one or two offspring, offset the parents who have three to ten or more.

It has been awhile since I looked at the Out of Africa theory and intend to do so as soon as I get home. However it seems to me, that huge populations are the basis for this theory.

 

[grannymh]

itinerant said something of the same kind and I am intrigued to know what is this relevant thing to palaeo-demography that is outside genetics.

Anyway, about the references. Here is the list again. Apologies to those who have seen it before, although I suspect that I have added a few papers since I last posted it. These papers describe analyses of many loci in various parts of the nuclear and mitochondrial genome which together are inconsistent with modern humans arising from two sole parents. These are, I think, the most telling of the references on this subject that I have collected in the last few years:

The MHC complex:
Ayala, The myth of Eve, Molecular biology and human origins, *Science *270, 1930 – 1936

Ayala and Escalate, The evolution of human populations: a molecular perspective. Mol Phylogenet Evol 5,188–201.

Ayala et al, Molecular genetics of speciation and human origins, PNAS 91, 6787 – 6794 (1994)

Bergstrom et al, Recent Origin of DRB1 alleles and implications for human evolution,* Nature Genetics* 18, 237 (1998),

Screuder et al in The HLA Dictionary*, Tissue Antigens* 65, 1 - 55

Gyllensten, Sundvall and Ehrlich, Allelic diversity is generated by intraexon sequence exchange at the DRB1 locus of primates, PNAS 88, 3686 – 3690 (1991)

Takahata and Satta, Footprints of intragenic recombination at HLA loci, *Immunogenetics *47, 430 – 431 (1998)

Beta-globin:
Harding et al, ‘Archaic African and Asian lineages in the genetic ancestry of modern humans’, Am J Hum Genet 60, 772 - 789

Apolipoprotein C II:
Xiong et al, ‘No severe bottleneck during human evolution; evidence from two apolipoprotein C II alleles’, Am J Hum Genet 48, 383 -389

Nuclear genome:
Rogers and Jorde, ‘Genetic evidence on the origin of modern humans’, Hum Biol 67, 1 - 36, show that a modest bottleneck of 10,000 individuals is consistent with the data.

Takahata et al, ‘Diversion time and population size in the lineage leading to modern humans’, Theor Popul Biol 48, 198 - 221

Zhao et al, Worldwide DNA sequence variation in a 10 kilo-base noncoding region on human chromosome 22, PNAS 97, 11354 – 11358 (2000)

mtDNA:
Takahata, ‘Allelic genealogy and human evolution’, Mol Biol Evol 10, 2 - 22;

Y-chromosome data:
Hammer, ’ A recent common ancestry for human Y-chromosomes’, *Nature *378, 376 - 378

Pritchard et al, Population growth of Human Y Chromosomes: A Study of Y Chromosome Microsatellites, Mol Biol Evol 16,1791 – 1798 (1999)

LD:
Tanesa et al, Recent human effective population size estimated from linkage disequilibrium, Genome Res 17, 520 – 526 (2007)

Hayes et al, Novel multilocus measures of linkage disequilibrium to estimate past effective population size, *Genome Res *13, 635 – 643 (2003)

X-chromosome:

Yu, Fu and Li, DNA polymorphism in a worldwide sample of human X-chromosomes, Mol Biol Evol 19, 2131 – 2141 (2002)

Microsatellites:

Zhivotsky et al, Features of evolution and expansion of modern humans, inferred from genomewide microsatellite markers, Am J Hum Gen 5, 1171 – 1176 (2003)

General studies:

Cavalli-Sforza and Feldman, The application of molecular genetic approaches to the study of human evolution, Nature Genetics 33, 266 – 275 (2003)

Jorde, Bamshad and Rogers, Using mitochondrial and nuclear DNA markers to reconstruct human evolution, Bioessays 20, 126 – 136 (1998)

Liu et al, A geographically explicit model of worldwide human settlement history, Am J Hum Gen 79, 230 – 237 (2006)

J D Wall, Estimating ancestral population sizes and divergence times, Genetics 163, 395 – 404 (2003)

Hawks et al, Population bottlenecks and Pleistocene human evolution, *Mol Bio Evol *17, 2 – 22 (2000)

Harpending et al, Genetic traces of ancient demography, PNAS 95, 1961 – 1967 (1998)

Takahata and Satta, Evolution of the primate lineage leading to modern humans: Phylogenetic and demographic inferences from DNA sequences, PNAS 94, 4811- 4815 (1997)

Alec
evolutionpages.com

thank you

 

[grannymh]

Thanks for the note. I just finished a book by Francisco Ayala. I was impressed with his clear reasoning and especially his attitude about the subject. I’m busy now trying to take in what I can regarding recent interpretations of the fossil record. As far as the current issue is concerned here on CAF regarding what you said genetics research discloses, I have to study up more on that so I won’t be proffering opinions without supporting evidence. Opinions without good supporting evidence aren’t worth anyone’s time.

And those other “important factors” I alluded to…I do not think, after all, I can articulate them with sufficient clarity at this time. Hence, it will be awhile before I say anything much on this topic. I have some homework to do on the subject first. That includes reviewing your posts. I appreciate the information you provided.

Until next time…All the best!

And the name of the book is? Thanks. Or are there published papers saying the same thing?
thank you

 

[StAnastasia]

I said *your *faith, not the Catholic faith in general. Maybe you do think the Catholic faith is not compatible, but plenty here would disagree with that so I’m not really inclined to take your word for it and from what I’ve read I don’t see why you would insist that it would be beyond that perhaps you choose to take certain parts of the bible literally.

Popes, archbishops, bishops, and priests agree with you, Liquidpele.

 

[rossum]

Popes, archbishops, bishops, and priests agree with you, Liquidpele.

One might also include Saint Thomas Aquinas in that list:“In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing.”

• Summa
  rossum

 

[itinerant1]

itinerant said something of the same kind and I am intrigued to know what is this relevant thing to palaeo-demography that is outside genetics.

Alec, you are reading something into what I said that is not there. Let me clarify. I was just mentioning one of the areas of evolution I am reading about at this time. It has nothing to do with the genetics discussion on CAF. In fact, I have a rather large stack of books on various aspects of evolution I intend to plow through, as time permits, because it is a fascinating science, one well worth knowing. ID supporters are missing out.

 

[itinerant1]

The individuals I was considering are very prominent and well-known. But yes, there are certainly others that I don’t know about.

No – not because they happen not to be ID, but because they are contradictory for the reasons I gave. But beyond that, there may be a very large variety of theories of theistic evolution out there and you’re right, I haven’t evaluated them all. But for the sake of summarizing, I’m just referring to the most commonly known ideas under the title of theistic evolution.

Of course, the same can be said of ID. There are many views on ID theory – and it’s difficult to be aware of them all. But you tend to sweep away ID theory based on what you know about it. I have already shown the foundation of ID theory tracing back to the earliest eras of Catholic history.

You interpretations project ID thinking onto thinkers that do not hold to such ideas. What I have seen, and it is rather common on CAF with ID supporters like yourself, is you jump on philosophical or theological references to design in nature as support for ID theory. This is logically and exegetically sloppy. Nonetheless, ID supporters on CAF always find a way to ignore or talk around that fact. Perhaps it is because they just don’t get it.

Because Peter Kreeft speaks about intelligent design, your knee-jerk reaction is to cite him as supporting ID theory. You said, “That’s the ID argument. Dr. Peter Kreeft makes this crystal-clear again.” Wrong! You read every reference to design through the distorting filter of ID-ology.

And it won’t do any good to make references to Thomas Aquinas because your understanding of his philosophy, based on what you have said on CAF, is superficial at best. Have you ever wondered why contemporary Thomists are not flocking over to support ID?

That design is observed in nature is granted. But you do not understand the level of causality that explains that design, which manifests itself phenomenally. Design is only explained, to borrow a Kantian term, at the noumenal level. The natural sciences do not deal with design at this level. So, Aquinas would not take a liking to your confusion about the levels of explanation pursuant to scientific and philosophic explanation.

ID conflates ultimate and secondary causes. That’s a pure Thomistic judgement on the philosophic fallacy of ID theory. The implication of this conflation is that ID is not science, it is bad theology, and bad philosophy.

As physicist, theologian and historian of science Fr. Stanley Jaki has said, sound philosophical thinking seems to be in short supply at the Discovery Institute. Amen, I say.

 

[itinerant1]

And the name of the book is? Thanks. Or are there published papers saying the same thing?
thank you

I’m wasn’t really saying anything significant in that post. What I had in mind is that it was a refreshing change to read something by Francisco Ayala.

The militant atheism in books by Dennett and Dawkins gets wearisome. These guys can be more irritating than Jehovah Witnesses always knocking on your door. Hell would be a JW eternally knocking on Dawkin’s door.

 

[StAnastasia]

One might also include Saint Thomas Aquinas in that list:“In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing.” - Summarossum

Quite right. One could also add Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, St. Albert the Great, and others.