Myth of evolution and new drug discovery

[CGDouglas]

Which is truer to the public? In the United States, the majority of the public prefers Creation.

Peace,
Ed

Yet truer to the public does not immediately mean the factual truth.

And without bias, which creation story?

God Bless.

Chris.

 

[edwest2]

I again ask you, which creation text should we study for the creation matter, without religious bias in the path?

Shinto? in which the god Izanagi and goddess Izanami churned the ocean with a spear to make a small island of curdled salt?Two deities went down to the island, mixed there, and bore main islands, deities, and forefathers of Japan.

Science is observation, without utilising a higher power in work, it’s a focus upon how things work and function.

And even yet, with the method of empiricism, it does not contradict faith.

Even if I disagree with the formation in the Genesis account, I do believe the creation of Adam and Eve, the soul infused into the Human species. I’m still personally not sure on the rib.

God Bless.

Chris.

Well, I’m certain about the rib and so is the Church. I encourage you to look over what the Church has said about this subject. See the encyclical titled Humani Generis, available online. Also see, Communion and Stewardship. It’s long but if you read it carefully, you’ll see how the Church views the development of life.

Let me ask you this. If a stranger came up to you and said, Why did Jesus die for me? What would your answer be?

God bless,
Ed

 

[CGDouglas]

Well, I’m certain about the rib and so is the Church. I encourage you to look over what the Church has said about this subject. See the encyclical titled Humani Generis, available online. Also see, Communion and Stewardship. It’s long but if you read it carefully, you’ll see how the Church views the development of life.

Let me ask you this. If a stranger came up to you and said, Why did Jesus die for me? What would your answer be?

God bless,
Ed

Humani Generis? By Pope Pius XII? Good thing you mentioned that, I was reading parts of it on the train home, albeit not complete in my readings, the Pope seemed to address concern in the beginning parts of how anything was starting to passby as truth. Monogenesis I don’t disagree with.

Although I largely disagree with a poster on this forum St. Anastasia, the user has a quotation from that book which shows favour for common ancestorship.

I personally don’t think that our development was chance and accidental, yet ironically neither does Richard Dawkins. I believe in full development by God.

Jesus died for our sins, to redeem us, to save us. Yet this is the theological aspect that can be applied to evolution. The scientific classroom only wants to know how evolution works on the basis of empiricism, the natural way.

Edit: I’d also like to add this:

35. It remains for Us now to speak about those questions which, although they pertain to the positive sciences, are nevertheless more or less connected with the truths of the Christian faith. In fact, not a few insistently demand that the Catholic religion takes these sciences into account as much as possible. This certainly would be praiseworthy in the case of clearly proved facts; but caution must be used when there is rather question of hypotheses, having some sort of scientific foundation, in which the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture or in Tradition is involved. If such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted.

1. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church **does not forbid **that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.

Humani Generis.

God Bless.

Chris.

 

[edwest2]

Chris,

Even here, attempts are being made to revise Genesis. Adam, we are told, was not an individual but one of many. Further, some believe that before Adam, there were hominids or pre-humans. Genesis isn’t about a man but mankind, or so we’re told.

Go to Romans 5:12

“Through one man sin entered into the world, and through sin death, and so death passed to all mankind in turn, in that all sinned.”

God bless,
Ed

 

[liquidpele]

Chris,

Even here, attempts are being made to revise Genesis. Adam, we are told, was not an individual but one of many. Further, some believe that before Adam, there were hominids or pre-humans. Genesis isn’t about a man but mankind, or so we’re told.

Go to Romans 5:12

“Through one man sin entered into the world, and through sin death, and so death passed to all mankind in turn, in that all sinned.”

God bless,
Ed

I’m no expert, but your quote there appears to simply say that one man was the cause of sin, not that he was the only man that existed. Besides, who did Adam and Eve’s children reproduce with? And more importantly, did Adam and Eve have navels?

 

[CGDouglas]

Chris,

Even here, attempts are being made to revise Genesis. Adam, we are told, was not an individual but one of many. Further, some believe that before Adam, there were hominids or pre-humans. Genesis isn’t about a man but mankind, or so we’re told.

Go to Romans 5:12

“Through one man sin entered into the world, and through sin death, and so death passed to all mankind in turn, in that all sinned.”

God bless,
Ed

The concept that there are a few homo-sapiens, and that only two were infused with souls as to be the point to parents of the human race.

In somesense it’s polygenesis, in others it’s monogenesis.

It seems polygenesis due to the number of other homo-sapiens, yet monogenesis if only two were infused with souls.

I stict traditionally on the matter of the human race, but our rise and form is compatible.

God Bless.

Chris.

 

[rossum]

cells > ----- > multiple cells > ----- > fish > ---- > amphibians > ---- > man

As I said, you need to learn more about the classification of living organisms. All multiple celled organisms are eukaryotes. All fish are eukaryotes. All amphibians are eukaryotes. All humans are eukaryotes. The classification of “eukaryote” is very close to the root of the Tree of Life. At that level the classifications are: viruses, eubacteria, archaea and eukaryotes. All of those classifications contain multifarious species.

Unless you are going to dig into the real differences between the different strains of bacteria and the different strains of viruses then your illustration is worthless. You are mixing classifications at the highest level (viruses) with classifications at the lowest level (species). At the level of your virus example there is no difference between a fish and a human, both are eukaryotes. If you want to make your example relevant then you need to look at how different viruses evolve from each other, and compare that to how different eukaryotes evolve from each other.

Supposedly after billions of generations. Bacteria do not exhibit this level of transformation nor do viruses.

This is plainly incorrect. Now that we have been able to sequence genomes we can see that there is an immense amount of variety in bacteria (eubacteria and archaea). There is less variety in phenotype but there is a greater variety in genotype. Viruses are even more variable as they lack most of the error correcting mechanisms present in other organisms.

rossum

 

[Touchstone]

No. It has not. Thousands of chemical combinations are tried. It’s trial and error. Computers and the introduction of microarrays have speeded up the process and cut costs but that’s it.

Peace,
Ed

Here’s an abstract of an article that appeared in Aids Reviews, a peer reviewed scientific journal, called “HIV evolutionary dynamics within and among hosts”

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17078483

The HIV evolutionary processes continuously unfold, leaving a measurable footprint in viral gene sequences. A variety of statistical models and inference techniques have been developed to reconstruct the HIV evolutionary history and to investigate the population genetic processes that shape viral diversity. Remarkably different population genetic forces are at work within and among hosts. Population-level HIV phylogenies are mainly shaped by selectively neutral epidemiologic processes, implying that genealogy-based population genetic inference can be useful to study the HIV epidemic history. Such evolutionary analyses have shed light on the origins of HIV, and on the epidemic spread of viral variants in different geographic locations and in different populations. The HIV genealogies reconstructed from within-host sequences indicate the action of selection pressure. In addition, recombination has a significant impact on HIV genetic diversity. Accurately quantifying both the adaptation rate and the population recombination rate of HIV will contribute to a better understanding of immune escape and drug resistance. Characterizing the impact of HIV transmission on viral genetic diversity will be a key factor in reconciling the different population genetic processes within and among hosts.

That’s an example from HIV researchers of the utility and value of understanding the evolutionary processes that produced HIV. Understanding that, as you can see from the abstract, is seen to be important as a basis for progress toward the solution. Like “pure existence” it gets reduced to gibberish when it has to rectified against the real world.

Does the astrologer’s explanation of “reception” explain anything to about the real world? If not, why not? On your terms, it seems to be obligatory, over the mundane and complicated details of astronomy, burdened as they are in being accountable to real world concepts and experiences.

-TS

 

[CGDouglas]

I’m no expert, but your quote there appears to simply say that one man was the cause of sin, not that he was the only man that existed. Besides, who did Adam and Eve’s children reproduce with? And more importantly, did Adam and Eve have navels?

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

416 By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all human beings.

417 Adam and Eve **transmitted to their descendants **human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called “original sin”.

418 As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called “concupiscence”).

Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Contextually since New Testmanet Scripture is highly related in relationship to the Old Testmanet, and as such they still recognise the Father and Mother of all humans, Adam and Eve. As for Adam and Eve’s children, incest.

God Bless.

Chris.

 

[edwest2]

Here’s an abstract of an article that appeared in Aids Reviews, a peer reviewed scientific journal, called “HIV evolutionary dynamics within and among hosts”

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17078483

That’s an example from HIV researchers of the utility and value of understanding the evolutionary processes that produced HIV. Understanding that, as you can see from the abstract, is seen to be important as a basis for progress toward the solution. Like “pure existence” it gets reduced to gibberish when it has to rectified against the real world.

Does the astrologer’s explanation of “reception” explain anything to about the real world? If not, why not? On your terms, it seems to be obligatory, over the mundane and complicated details of astronomy, burdened as they are in being accountable to real world concepts and experiences.

-TS

On my terms? No, not at all.

uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-do-we-invoke-darwin/

Peace,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

Even here, attempts are being made to revise Genesis. Adam, we are told, was not an individual but one of many. Further, some believe that before Adam, there were hominids or pre-humans. Genesis isn’t about a man but mankind, or so we’re told.

That is correct. The human population never feel below about 3,000 breeding pairs. The myth of “Adam and Eve” is a theologically important story.

 

[edwest2]

As I said, you need to learn more about the classification of living organisms. All multiple celled organisms are eukaryotes. All fish are eukaryotes. All amphibians are eukaryotes. All humans are eukaryotes. The classification of “eukaryote” is very close to the root of the Tree of Life. At that level the classifications are: viruses, eubacteria, archaea and eukaryotes. All of those classifications contain multifarious species.

Unless you are going to dig into the real differences between the different strains of bacteria and the different strains of viruses then your illustration is worthless. You are mixing classifications at the highest level (viruses) with classifications at the lowest level (species). At the level of your virus example there is no difference between a fish and a human, both are eukaryotes. If you want to make your example relevant then you need to look at how different viruses evolve from each other, and compare that to how different eukaryotes evolve from each other.

This is plainly incorrect. Now that we have been able to sequence genomes we can see that there is an immense amount of variety in bacteria (eubacteria and archaea). There is less variety in phenotype but there is a greater variety in genotype. Viruses are even more variable as they lack most of the error correcting mechanisms present in other organisms.

rossum

I understand but I think you know what I’m driving at.

Did single celled organisms become multiple celled organisms? Did these go on to become fish? Did fish go on to become amphibians? Did amphibians go on to become exclusively land dwelling animals?

I’ve used the now proven false conclusion that birds evolved from dinosaurs. The average person is likely unaware of the classification system and the correct terminology. What I’m getting at are gross morphological changes that are atributed to gradual evolution. And error correction in DNA is a problem for evolution.

Peace,
Ed

 

[grannymh]

That is correct. The human population never feel below about 3,000 breeding pairs. The myth of “Adam and Eve” is a theologically important story.

I beg to differ.

It is possible to demonstrate that there are two sole parents of the human race.

In fact, the possibility of two sole parents of the human race lies within the nature of the human species.

Furthermore, two sole parents are possible within the scope of evolutionary theory. I am not referring to creationism nor intelligent design. I am referring to piecing together current scientific research in addition to Neo-Darwinism.

I would like to respond further to this interesting topic; however, I will be out of town until the middle of October. Since I depend on finding the rare granny-friendly computer, I will not be able to post as I would like.

The real names of Adam and Eve may have been Jane and John Doe, but they are still the sole parents of the human species. There is no myth about this.

Blessings,
granny

No weight of gold or silver can measure human worth. Hymn from Magnificat.

 

[StAnastasia]

I beg to differ. It is possible to demonstrate that there are two sole parents of the human race…I am referring to piecing together current scientific research in addition to Neo-Darwinism. …The real names of Adam and Eve may have been Jane and John Doe, but they are still the sole parents of the human species. There is no myth about this.

Sorry Grannymh – you have no case here. The genetics are simply against you, The breeding population never dropped two times to just one single pair (Adam, Noah), as a scientifically vacuous biblical literalism would mindlessly insist.

StAnastasia

 

[liquidpele]

I beg to differ.

It is possible to demonstrate that there are two sole parents of the human race.

In fact, the possibility of two sole parents of the human race lies within the nature of the human species.

Furthermore, two sole parents are possible within the scope of evolutionary theory. I am not referring to creationism nor intelligent design. I am referring to piecing together current scientific research in addition to Neo-Darwinism.

I would like to respond further to this interesting topic; however, I will be out of town until the middle of October. Since I depend on finding the rare granny-friendly computer, I will not be able to post as I would like.

The real names of Adam and Eve may have been Jane and John Doe, but they are still the sole parents of the human species. There is no myth about this.

Blessings,
granny

No weight of gold or silver can measure human worth. Hymn from Magnificat.

While I don’t agree with the story and I think it’s ludicrous, I wouldn’t be surprised if science supported the theory in more ways than one. Considering that it’s believed humans expanded across the globe from an original source, this would seem to correlate. However, I think that might be about as far as one could really go as the fossil/bone record is simply too sparse for proper analysis down to specifics - especially concerning talking serpents.

 

[StAnastasia]

While I don’t agree with the story and I think it’s ludicrous, I wouldn’t be surprised if science supported the theory in more ways than one. Considering that it’s believed humans expanded across the globe from an original source, this would seem to correlate.

Liquidpele, if the human race had been collapsed down to one breeding pair – and if this had happened twice! – there would be an unmistakable signature in our genome. Instead, the genome testifies to far greater diversity. So either the
Adam-Eve-talking-snake story is true and you flush science down the toilet, or you keep the science and consider whether there might be a non-literal way of reading the story.

 

[edwest2]

Liquidpele, if the human race had been collapsed down to one breeding pair – and if this had happened twice! – there would be an unmistakable signature in our genome. Instead, the genome testifies to far greater diversity. So either the
Adam-Eve-talking-snake story is true and you flush science down the toilet, or you keep the science and consider whether there might be a non-literal way of reading the story.

And here is the problem for all, not just Catholics.

The science must be considered in higher regard than the deposit of faith held by the Church, because regardless of what future discoveries may come and regardless what future factual conclusions might be reversed, one must start with the conclusion that science is done, finished, and standing firm regarding man. That conclusion is an immovable object.

“flush science down the toilet” The mind of man asking for worship.

How about looking at the science and being honest? No final conclusion can be drawn.

Meanwhile, the Church declares that Adam and Eve are real people. Individuals.

Peace,
Ed

 

[grannymh]

Sorry Grannymh – you have no case here. The genetics are simply against you, The breeding population never dropped two times to just one single pair (Adam, Noah), as a scientifically vacuous biblical literalism would mindlessly insist.

StAnastasia

As I have said to you many times, I am not dealing with Noah. Furthermore, genetics is not the only pebble on the beach.

Isn’t it a bit premature to dismiss the “case” without knowing how the entire demonstration will be put together? Maybe you know something I don’t.
Since at this point, I am not entirely sure how I will put the pieces of research together. Nonetheless, I was taught to gather as much information as possible before deciding the content of the presentation.

Furthermore, Why would I be looking at a “drop” of the breeding population to “just one single pair”? Again, you must know something I don’t. Nonetheless, when I do happen upon such a “drop”, I will think of you. In the meantime, I am going on a wonderful mindless trip. Thus, I can be open to surprises without prejudice.

Blessings,
granny

The quest is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[grannymh]

While I don’t agree with the story and I think it’s ludicrous, I wouldn’t be surprised if science supported the theory in more ways than one. Considering that it’s believed humans expanded across the globe from an original source, this would seem to correlate. However, I think that might be about as far as one could really go as the fossil/bone record is simply too sparse for proper analysis down to specifics - especially concerning talking serpents.

The serpent part is not part of the scientific possibility of two sole parents of the human race so I do not deal with it.

Like you, I am interested in the “Out of Africa Theory” and especially the various interpretations of it. This is a real possibility considering the unity of genetics within the human species.

One of the interpretations is that there was migration both out and back into Africa. Yet, the basic development of humans away from their source in Africa correlates with the development of those remaining in Africa. Of course there were human adaptations such as various skin colors, hair, size etc., But the essence of the human person remained.

I am a believer in the evolutionary theory regarding matter in nature. However, it seems to me that the material/physical evolutionary explanation is very limited when it comes to the human person. While the spiritual soul cannot be put under a microscope, it is still a reality.

So in a way “evolution” has become the myth of “one size fits all”. I find that sad.

 

[StAnastasia]

As I have said to you many times, I am not dealing with Noah. Furthermore, genetics is not the only pebble on the beach.

Grannymh, how can you not be dealing with the Noah story if you are dealing with the Adam and Eve story? They’re found in the same book!

Have a restful trip.

StAnastasia