Pope Benedict admits evidence for evolution

[Steve40]

Mont << That is false. I raised the issue of mutually exclusive theories. You didn’t respond to that >>

I didn’t respond because it was and still is totally incorrect. What they are arguing about is the details of evolution. Every paleoanthropologist alive today believes man evolved from ape-like ancestors because the evidence for that is overwhelming. They are not arguing that man did or did not evolve from ape-like ancestors, but the precise path that evolution may have taken.

What you have shown s not evidence of evolution. It is all on the surface. Take it down to the genetic level and prove it. Pictures are simplistic and misleading. They did a genetic study commonly refered to as mitocondria Eve where they can trace a gene in women going back in time. It stopped at about 6000 years ago. The Scientists thought the evidence was inconclusive. I disagree. You need to look on the inside. Prove it from genetics. You can’t.

 

[PhilVaz]

All righty, one more for good measure. OK I’ll admit I probably haven’t read every word of Montalban’s posts, but that’s because he tends to repeat himself. Here’s a few easy questions:

Why do independently derived phylogenetic trees of all organisms match each other with an extremely high degree of statistical significance? Why does independent morphological and molecular measurements determine the standard phylogenetic tree to better than 41 decimal places? Why do all the separate lines of evidence converge on the same one historical phylogenetic tree if all species are not united in an objective genealogy?

Why in spite of the extensive variation of form and function among organisms, do they share the same fundamental criteria for life: (1) replication, (2) information flow in continuity of kind, (3) catalysis, and (4) energy utilization or metabolism? Why do all known living things use polymers to perform these four basic functions: polynucleotides, polypeptides, and polysaccharides? Why does all known life use the same polymer (DNA or RNA) for storing species specific information? Why are all known organisms constructed of the same subset of 22 amino acids, even though there are 293 naturally occurring amino acids? Why do all known organisms use the same genetic code for transmitting information from the genetic material to the catalytic material?

Why do we find a quite complete set of dinosaur (reptile)-to-bird transitional fossils with no morphological gaps? Why do we have an exquisite series of fossils for the reptile-to-mammal intermediates? Why do we have many land-mammal to whale intermediates? Why do we find in the fossil record and geological column, prokaryotes appearing first, followed by simple multicellular animals like sponges and starfish, then lampreys, then fish, then amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals, then primates and finally man? Why is there a positive correlation between phylogeny and stratigraphy?

Why do legless snakes such as pythons carry vestigial pelvises hidden beneath their skin? Why do some lizards carry rudimentary, nonfunctional legs underneath their skin? Why do many blind cave-dwelling animals, such as the Mexican fish tetra, the salamander species Typhlotriton spelaeus and Proteus anguinus, have rudimentary vestigial eyes? Why do dandelions reproduce without reproduction yet retain flowers and produce pollen? Why are there flightless beetles which retain perfectly formed wings housed underneath fused wing covers? Why do over 90% of all adult humans develop third molars which are often malformed, impacted, causing significant pain, increased risk for injury, but are useful for chewing and grinding plant material?

Why do we find rare mutant whales that occasionally develop atavistic hindlimbs, or some whales with femurs, tibia, fibulae, and some include feet with complete digits? Why are there rare formation of extra toes in horses? Why are there atavistic thigh muscles in birds and sparrows? Hyoid muscles and atavistic dew claws in many dogs? Wings in normally wingless earwigs? Atavistic reduced fibulae in birds? Extra toes in guinea pigs and salamanders? Atavisms in humans, such as very rare true human tails some which are complex structures that have muscle, blood vessels, occasional vertebrae, cartilage, can move and contract, and are occasionally inherited?

Why does the gene that is required for Vitamin C synthesis, a pseudogene that is incapable of functioning, found in humans and guinea pigs, and in other primates? Why are there multiple odorant receptor genes? The RT6 protein gene? The galactosyl transferase gene? The tyrosinase-related gene (TYRL) ? Why do we share these vestigial genes, and the mutations that made these genes nonfunctional, with other primates?

continued…

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

more easy questions…

Why from embryological studies are there two bones of a developing reptile that eventually form the quadrate and the articular bones in the hinge of the adult reptilian jaw? Why is there a very complete series of fossil intermediates in which these structures are clearly modified from the reptilian jaw to the mammalian ear? Why do mammalian embryos, early in development, temporarily have pharyngeal pouches, which are morphologically indistinguishable from aquatic vertebrate gill pouches? Why do many species of snakes and legless lizards initially develop limb buds in their embryonic development, only to reabsorb them before hatching? Why do modern adult whales, dolphins, and porpoises who today have no hind legs, temporarily show various leg bones, nerves, and blood vessels in the cetacean fetus?

Why do later placental mammals (like humans and dogs) not have the egg-tooth and caruncle (and eggshell) but monotremes, such as the platypus and echidna, have both an egg-tooth and a caruncle? Why during marsupial development, an eggshell forms transiently and then is reabsorbed before live birth? Why do several marsupial newborns (such as baby Brushtail possums, koalas, and bandicoots) retain a vestigial caruncle like an oviparous reptile? Why does the chicken epithelium secrete dental enamel and direct the adjacent mesenchyme to form teeth when transplanted with a small piece of mammalian mesenchymal tissue?

Why do marsupials (kangaroos, etc) only inhabit Australia? Why are placental mammals virtually absent on Australia, despite the fact that many would flourish there? Why do the southern reaches of South America and Africa and all of Australia share lungfishes, ostrich-like birds (ratite birds), and leptodactylid frogs, all of which occur nowhere else? Why do alligators, some related species of giant salamander, and magnolias only occur in Eastern North America and East Asia? Why does the indigenous Cacti plant only inhabit the Americas, while Saharan and Australian vegetation is very distantly related? Why do members of the closely related pineapple family inhabit many diverse habitats (such as rainforest, alpine, and desert areas), but only in the American tropics, not African or Asian tropics?

Why do we find marsupial fossils on both South America and on Antarctica, since there are none there now? Why is every single one of the fossil ancestors of the modern horse found on the North American continent? Why do we find early hominid fossils on the African continent, and why are numerous transitional fossils between humans and the great apes found in southern and eastern Africa, but not elsewhere?

Why are the same bones in the same relative positions used in primate hands, bat wings, bird wings, pterosaur wings, whale and penguin flippers, horse legs, the digging forelimbs of moles, and webbed amphibian legs? Why does the fossil record show a general chronological progression of intermediate forms between theropod dinosaurs and modern birds, in which theropod structures were modified into modern bird structures?

Why do many proteins of very different function have strikingly similar amino acid sequences and three-dimensional structures, such as lysozyme and a-lactalbumin? Why does the analogy of the vertebrate eye and the cephalopod eye explain the structures of its predicted ancestors? Why do American and Saharan desert plants, which use different structures for the same functions, live in dry, arid regions?

Why is a full 45% of our genome composed of transposons, which serve no known function for the individual except to cause a significant fraction of genetic illnesses and cancers? Why are 21% of the human genome pseudogenes which serve no function? Why in humans is there one functional GDPH gene, but there are at least twenty GDPH pseudogenes? Why in mice are there approximately 200 GDPH pseudogenes, none of which are necessary?

Why do humans and chimpanzees have the exact same cytochrome c protein sequence, when the chance occurrence of this is conservatively less than 1 out of 10^93 ? Why do human and chimpanzee cytochrome c proteins differ by only about 10 amino acids from all other mammals, when the chance occurrence of this in the absence of a hereditary mechanism is less than 1 out of 10^29 ? Why is bat cytochrome c much more similar to human cytochrome c than to hummingbird cytochrome c? Why is porpoise cytochrome c much more similar to human cytochrome c than to shark cytochrome c? Why does the phylogenetic tree data constructed from the cytochrome c data exactly recapitulate the relationships of major taxa as determined by the completely independent morphological data?

continued…

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

continued…

Why are the cytochrome c proteins in chimps and humans exactly identical? Why do the two DNA sequences that code for cytochrome c in humans and chimps differ by only one base, a 0.3% difference, even though there are 10^49 different sequences that could code for this protein?

Why are there very many examples of shared pseudogenes between primates and humans, with one hemoglobin, the ψη-globin pseudogene shared among the primates only, in the exact chromosomal location, with the same mutations that render it nonfunctional? Why do chimps and humans both share the same eight bp deletion in the steroid 21-hydroxylase pseudogene that renders it nonfunctional?

THE END.

Phil P

 

[steveandersen]

What you have shown s not evidence of evolution. It is all on the surface. Take it down to the genetic level and prove it. Pictures are simplistic and misleading.

do you think centuries of scientific work is based on pictures?

They did a genetic study commonly refered to as mitocondria Eve where they can trace a gene in women going back in time. It stopped at about 6000 years ago. The Scientists thought the evidence was inconclusive.

6000?
Mitochondrial Eve was dated at anywhare from 75,000 to 150,000 years ago. The number I’ve seen most often is atound 140,000.

scientists did not think it was inconlusive.
it gave an upper and lower estimate for the most recent common ancestor of all of us in the matrilinial line

I disagree. You need to look on the inside. Prove it from genetics. You can’t.

why not?

they have genetic maps of human migrations from a common orign

what do you have in mind?

 

[PhilVaz]

Steve << They did a genetic study commonly refered to as mitocondria Eve where they can trace a gene in women going back in time. It stopped at about 6000 years ago. >>

And hit out of the ball park by our own HECD (Alec) here:

Misconceptions Around Mitochondrial Eve

PLEASE CREATIONISTS, read some non-creationist material. OK Montalban has given some evidence of familiarity with some pro-evolution writings. I’ll give him a few brownie points for that.

Phil P

 

[rossum]

Rossum’s objection is one based on an idea that only people named in the Bible existed.

Cain quite clearly, upon receiving the ‘mark of cain’ points out his fear of being dealt harshly by other (un-named) people. They existed.

Whether God created them too, or they were born of union of people with Neraphim, or whatever is pure speculation. As is the idea that Adam’s people were incestuous.

Who knows what happened.

The Catholic Church requires that all Catholics believe that all humans were descended from Adam and Eve, “monogenism”. If you believe that Mrs Cain and Mrs Seth were both human and not descended from Adam and Eve, then your belief is outside Catholicism.

For me the evidence that there was no genetic bottleneck down to a population of two is compelling. Given that the difference between human and non-human within that population was the presence or not of a soul, then the bestiality solution meets both the criteria laid down by the Church and the scientific evidence. The incest solution does not meet the scientific evidence and your “non-Adamic creation” does not meet the Church’s criteria.

rossum

 

[Reformed_Rob]

Don’t loose faith yet. PhilVaz’s main point is to bombard with irrelevant information, to distract with volume - and then to claim victories (contained somewhere in the mass of information) - such as his claims ALL my points have been met on one evolutionist’s FAQ site.

And he’s misrepresented my arguments in order to help fit them into his debate

I’ve corresponded with Phil long before I was even Catholic, so when I see him here, I realize he’s held to what he studies and seems to be pretty consistent.

Not to say you aren’t consistent or committed, but Phil has earned a reputation as somewhat of an expert. With me at least.

 

[mgrfin]

<< I cited Darwin himself. But I don’t really think you’re here to ‘debate’, but to simply spam. >>

The point isn’t whether Darwin used the term, the argument you and creationists in the past have made about “survival of the fittest” was that it is a “tautology.” Those TalkOrigins articles prove it is not. NEXT.

Both you and I are here to debate, not to spam. But as we see only one side is presenting positive scientific evidence for their respective position. And that is the evolution side, not the creationist side.

Phil P

No, Phil, we are not here to debate.

We are not here to counter.

We are here to conciliate.

Winning is not what we do here. Are you here to enter into combat?

mgrfin

 

[PhilVaz]

mgr << No, Phil, we are not here to debate. >>

It is a debate, at least on this issue, whatever you want to call it. I call it a debate, a discussion, a disagreement.

mgr << We are not here to counter. We are here to conciliate. >>

Both/And.

mgr << Winning is not what we do here. Are you here to enter into combat? >>

Winning / Losing / Tying / Going Into Overtime / Hitting The Last Second Shot At The Buzzer, its all the same to me.

Whatever, basically I understand there are many many Christians who have problems with modern well-established science because they think it conflicts with faith. And some of them show up in here and post threads like “Pope Benedict admits evidence for evolution” but actually the same thinks the Pope apparently doesn’t realize that both Jesus and the Church Fathers taught we were created, not evolved.

So the Pope should therefore misrepresent and/or throw out all that well-established science. The Pope should reject the harmony between faith and reason. That sums up most of Montalban’s posts in the thread.

BTW what are you talking about? You just got here!

Join Date: July 31, 2007 Posts: 86 Hello?

Phil P

 

[Ahimsa]

continued…

Why are the cytochrome c proteins in chimps and humans exactly identical?..

Why are there very many examples of shared pseudogenes

It’s Bush’s fault.

 

[mgrfin]

continued…

Phil P

Really, Phil. What are you trying to prove? I could easily answer, “Why?”. Cause God said so.

You are showing intellectual dishonesty, passing that stuff off in the name of science.

mgrfin

 

[PhilVaz]

mgr << You are showing intellectual dishonesty, passing that stuff off in the name of science. >>

Which stuff? This stuff? Or this stuff? Or this stuff? Have you read some of my stuff?

I have a lot of stuff. As George Carlin used to say, a web site is just a place for your stuff.

Oh you mean my little questions like on this page. Well what’s the answer from a creationist perspective? God did it? I agree, but God did it by macroevolution (common descent) which is what the evidence shows.

Phil P

 

[Montalban]

The Catholic Church requires that all Catholics believe that all humans were descended from Adam and Eve, “monogenism”. If you believe that Mrs Cain and Mrs Seth were both human and not descended from Adam and Eve, then your belief is outside Catholicism.

I’m not Catholic, so if you’re asking me to believe this because it’s Catholic, and therefore to defend it, because it’s Catholic, you’d be asking the wrong thing.

However, I do note that incest did occur in the OT, but was never ‘ideal’.

For me the evidence that there was no genetic bottleneck down to a population of two is compelling.

Then you’ve never heard of scientists supposing a ‘mitochondrial Eve’

Given that the difference between human and non-human within that population was the presence or not of a soul, then the bestiality solution meets both the criteria laid down by the Church and the scientific evidence.

It is possible that something like this happened, according to Catholic faith, I don’t know what they believe on the issue.

The incest solution does not meet the scientific evidence and your “non-Adamic creation” does not meet the Church’s criteria.

rossum

You’re incorrect on the first. I have no answer for the second.

 

[Montalban]

All righty, one more for good measure. OK I’ll admit I probably haven’t read every word of Montalban’s posts, but that’s because he tends to repeat himself.

how would you know if you admit having not read them all?

You’ve already
a) claimed you’ve read them all, already
and
b) contradicted yourself then

Now you do so again by making another self-reuting claim.

Then you go on and repeat your error of demanding that I apologise for creationist theories. If I were too, then I’d do something as simple as you do (and you call this ‘debate’) and say read this. creationontheweb.com/content/view/21/65 and then crow to ANY of your replies that it’s already been answered!

You can’t even admit your hero thought a tautology was the best way to describe his theory, and note again, I dealt with talkorigins rebuttal, especially how they *****-foot about the idea of blaming Darwin for using it in the first place.

 

[shadow_fire]

Wow! he just gained some respect frome me.

 

[Montalban]

I’ve corresponded with Phil long before I was even Catholic, so when I see him here, I realize he’s held to what he studies and seems to be pretty consistent.

Not to say you aren’t consistent or committed, but Phil has earned a reputation as somewhat of an expert. With me at least.

The problem with this is his views of science are monolithic, and it’s false. There’s many sciences. And sciences are tinged by the people who use them. There’s great works on cultural, and gender bias in science.

Darwin himself did this, observing ‘evidence’ and interpreting it to meet the gender-politics of his own day. Things have not changed
“In the mid-nineteenth century, social Darwinists invoked evolutionary biology to argue that a woman was a man whose evolution - both physical and mental - had been arrested in a primitive stage. In this same period, doctors used their authority as scientists to discourage women’s attempts to gain access to higher education. Women’s intellectual development, it was argued, would proceed only at great cost to reproductive development. As the brain developed, so the logic went, the ovaries shrivel. In the twentieth century, scientists have given modern dress to these prejudices. Arguments for women’s different (and inferior) nature have been based on hormonal research, brain lateralization, and sociobiology.?
Londa Schiebinger, “History and Philosophy”, in Sex and Scientific Inquiry, eds. Sandra Harding and Jean F. O’Barr, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), p. 26-27.
Quoted at: dean.sbc.edu/bart.html

Further…
Darwin postulated that females are ‘‘coy,’’ mating rarely and choosing their mates carefully, presumably betting their odds on the males with the best genes to contribute to their offspring. For their part, males are ‘‘ardent’’ and promiscuous, and fight amongst themselves for female partners. Later theories added that males are promiscuous because they have less to lose by making babies - unlike eggs, sperm are plentiful and small. Plus, females usually do most of the work to raise the offspring”
eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-02/su-sag021003.php
See also
stanford.edu/dept/news/report/news/2003/february19/aaassocialselection219.html

He simply accepts that his version of science *is *science. It is a form of science that is greatly influenced by an anti-theistic sentiment, hence naturalism and materialism dominate its processes here in the West. It is gender and culturally biased, of course and is pro-Capitalist.
“In Marxism, groups are more important than individuals. Capitalists view nature as competitive, whereas these Marxist critics tend to view it as being much more cooperative.”
stephenjaygould.org/reviews/hull_sociobiology.html

There is a dialectic relationship between capitalism and (materialistic) evolutionism; they feed off each other.

 

[Montalban]

Wow! he just gained some respect frome me.

Well, after 10 more such comments, one side automatically wins!

 

[Montalban]

Really, Phil. What are you trying to prove? I could easily answer, “Why?”. Cause God said so.

You are showing intellectual dishonesty, passing that stuff off in the name of science.

mgrfin

For me, God’s word is enough. Not so, for many people here. They prefer man-made explanations.

“The real problem with the evolution debate is not empirical Darwinism. Rather, it is a sort of theory creep in which a bold but circumscribed scientific claim becomes conflated with a much more sweeping philosophical claim. The philosophical claim is then presented as though it were a confirmed scientific fact. Metaphysical Darwinism maintains that the theory of natural selection has successfully reduced all teleological and normative phenomena to the interplay of chance and necessity, thus eliminating purpose and value from our picture of the world. Metaphysical Darwinists regard belief in objective values as primitive superstition, on a par with a belief in witches and ghosts. What is worse, they perpetrate a fraud on the public by draping their profoundly speculative philosophy with the mantle of scientific authority.
James Barham “Why I am Not a Darwinist”, in Dembski, W. A. (ed) “Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals who Find Darwinism Unconvincing”, p178.

 

[rossum]

Then you’ve never heard of scientists supposing a 'mitochondrial Eve

You have misunderstood the science here. Mitochondrial Eve was not the only woman alive at the time. There were other women alive at the same time, but we are descended from their sons, grandsons, great-grandsons etc. Our line back to Mitochondrial Eve is through daughters only. As the Wikipedia article you reference says:The existence of Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam does not imply the existence of population bottlenecks or a first couple. They each co-existed within a large human population. Some of these contemporaries have no living descendants today, and others are ancestors of all people alive today.

The evidence for human population bottlenecks is different, see Late Pleistocene human population bottlenecks, volcanic winter, and differentiation of modern humans. This sets the minimum human population at between 1,000 and 10,000 individuals around 70,000 years ago. That is 70,000 years after Mitochondrial Eve, who was 140,000 years ago.

rossum