Pope Benedict admits evidence for evolution

[rossum]

Do any of the evolutionists here realize how hard they are working to try to reconcile beilef in God with the current evolutionary dogma?

I am not working hard at all, since I am Buddhist.

I wonder if you realize who ridiculous it sounds to hear about homo habilis, homo erectus and homo sexual, or whatever imaginary creature your are referring to in whatever imaginary age.

You would do well to learn the difference between the Latin homo and the Greek homo. They are different words with different meanings.

The story keeps changing. The “missing links” keep being exposed as composits, labratory created frauds, or extinct pigs.

“Archaeoraptor”, the composite, was never seen as a missing link in human evolution. “Nebraska Man”, the extinct pig, was a mistake, not a fraud, and was corrected within a few years. You need to get your facts right.

Is Christianity invalidated by the existence of fraudulent relics? There were once eight or more Holy prepuces, of which only one at most can have been genuine - the rest were frauds.

The existence of frauds and mistakes is not a problem for evolution since the recognised frauds are not used as evidence. You need to show that all the evidence is fraudulent, not just part of it.

Why is there such hysteria to get others to believe this nonsense? For hundreds of years, the leaders of the Church believed in Creation by a Creator. Now, we find that they have been mistaken? They Bible is in error. Science has shown us the truth, or at least the current truth.

One interpretation of the Bible has been shown to be in error. This is not a first, in the early church the Bible was interpreted to allow slavery, and this was standard up to the end of the Roman Empire. Now the Church interprets the Bible differently and slavery is not allowed. Bible interpretations change over time.

Imagine an American plane flying of Germany during World War Two. It is being shot at by German planes, and maybe FLAK from the ground. Small bits of metal begin striking the plane. They cause small variation in the airfoil of the wing. They remove a piece of metal from the engine. Another takes a piece out of the fuselage. By the time the plane gets back to friendly territory, the random impacts of the bullets and anti-aircraft shells have modified it into a jet fighter.

A nice story. Your analogy fails to incorporate the element of natural selection. A better analogy would be:Imagine a squadron of American planes attacking Germany during World War Two. On each raid some are shot at by German planes, and maybe FLAK from the ground. Small bits of metal begin striking some of the planes. They may cause small variation in the airfoil of the wing. They may remove a piece of metal from the engine. Another may take a piece out of the fuselage. Those planes that are changed so as to be no longer able to fly crash and do not make it back from that raid. Others can make it back to base. The squadron is brought back to strength with new planes, that incorporate any of the useful changes made during the previous raid. Then the squadron makes another raid. Again planes are modified. Planes with bad modifications crash and don’t make it back, planes with good modifications get back to base and the good modifications are copied into the new repalcement planes delivered to the squadron. After years of war and many many raids over Germany the cumulative effects of random impacts of the bullets and anti-aircraft shells together with the incorporation of good changes into the new replacement planes have modified them into jet fighters.

Does that sound believeable? Well, how about an animal that reproduces. It’s progeny is affected by random mutation. Over many generations this goes on. Eventually, the dinosaur becomes a bird. How’s that for a crazy story.

Again you have eliminated the part of natural selection from your story. Hence this is a strawman argument.

rossum

 

[steveandersen]

The Pope says that there’s evidence for evolution.

Yes.
Then of course His Holiness is not a biologist

For most of the life of the church we’ve had many Church Fathers say that we were created.

Yes. As does the Pope
Are you suggesting that there is some conflict?

Evolution involves no creation.

yes…and maybe no.

It doesn’t deal with the creation of life per se, just what happened after it started. It really doesn’t matter from an evolutionary point of view whether it was God or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
So I guess it is a semantic question as to whether you consider the rise and fall of species from an existing chain of life to be “creation”

You may wish to believe in God, but there’s nothing in evolution to show that he is at work there.

As with every science. It is not its province. That is why science works equally well in China, Europe, and India.
Why your particular problem with biology?

Consider that there is nothing in fluid dynamics that explicitly cites God.
The Pope could state that there is evidence for fluid dynamics. How would that in anyway take away from Creation?

He could say that this plane flew because of differential pressure across the airfoil or he could say that the angels held it up. Those are not mutually exclusive statements.

That’s the basis for evolution as it is currently taught.

None of the natural sciences mention God one way or another.
Why the particular problem with evolution?

But science can suggest a creator, such as through the hypothesis that the universe is ‘fit’ for life
members.iinet.net/~sejones/PoE/pe06env2.html#nvrnmntftnsfnvrsfrlf

The idea is bascially that there’s so many systems in place that it could not have happened by random; e.g.
Our earht’s tilt allows for the seasons.
The moon helps stablilise the earth, so we don’t over-tilt
Major planets in the outer-solar system prevent many objects hitting the earth - Jupiter draws them into its atmosphere - thus these planets are like sentinels.

Sure you could suppose that is evidence for God.
But how would you prove it?

The trivial answer is that if conditions weren’t what they are we wouldn’t be here to notice. Isn’t that just another “just so” story like you are accusing rossum of?

I personally would object to someone evoking God in a scientific theory. It is not its place. God is not a bug to be placed on a petri dish or a variable to solve for. If that were so there would be no need for faith.

Sure rare and/or improbable events can be cited as evidence of the Hand of God. But not only would that be a start down the road to a god of the gaps position IMHO but when you consider the time frames and numbers of stars some of the things you mention aren’t really that improbable.

PS I’m not quite sure what some people have against randomness? Most things in this world have a probability associated with it. Science can do a great job at discovering what those are. That doesn’t preclude God being the one who set up the system.

 

[steveandersen]

Indeed, I’m waiting for the people who support God AND Evolution to tell me where was the first ‘man’ (with a soul)

That is not a question that science can answer

All we are required to believe is that we were given souls.

That is a pretty important event in and of itself.

Would the details of when it happened affect your faith in any way?

It doesn’t matter to me. I like to think that the upper Paleolithic revolution is evidence that something happened but that is just my own personal interpretation.

 

[valient_Lucy]

I’m with Benedict on this one (good thing! )

Any time I ask somebody how evolution “proves” there is no God, they cannot come up with an answer. It just seems to be an unquestioned assumption tacked on to the theory.

Yeah. People who say that evolution proves that there is no God have as much of a faulty understanding of science as they do of religion.

 

[steveandersen]

I wonder if Adam and Eve were Neanderthral or Cro-Magnon.

Neither obviously.

Neanderthals have gone extinct and Cro-Magnon refers only to the earliest modern humans in Europe, which had to come after A&E.

 

[freesoulhope]

PS I’m not quite sure what some people have against randomness?

Neither do I. If God is all knowing (I’m not sure how that’s possible, but I believe it), then I don’t believe that he is playing dice when he creates a system that has random-operating-systems, which have a degree of chance involved. I think that what it does show is how easy it would be for us to not exist “if” God is not trully behind the wheel. The idea cetainly qeulls human arrogance.

I don’t even think that the hypothesis that life randomly evolved by natural means from a primordial slime in some warm pond some-where, is contradictory to the Christian God. This does not mean that God is not responsible for those random forces; all it means is that the arguments, such as the design argument, no longer have any explanatory power as far as organic processes are concerned. (Though I still don’t think that Natural-Selection can explain the “Blind” intelligence and efficiency of animal behavior).

For God, the creation system is not random; rather it is designed to be “inevitable"; it just appears random for those who live in the system. We can imagine how we might have never existed; but in reality that is an impossibility; in a finite-random-system with set boundaries and possibilities, life would have eventually arisen from a primordial slime, given time. What the Naturalist-evolutionist cannot explain, is why such things should happen in the first place, if in fact the universe has not been around for an “infinite” duration, in which an infinite amount of universes and possibilities could be actualized. Because it hasn’t, one cannot take evolution into the cosmos. But rather, one would have to except that, all the initial conditions needed for a life permitting universe, was already there in the beginning at the Big bang, and that such complexity and motion, could not logically pop into existence un-aided, and neither can they be explain logically by natural means; even if you take the process further back in time using the M-theory.

Do you think I’m on the right tracks?

 

[freesoulhope]

That is not a question that science can answer

All we are required to believe is that we were given souls.

That is a pretty important event in and of itself.

Would the details of when it happened affect your faith in any way?

It doesn’t matter to me. I like to think that the upper Paleolithic revolution is evidence that something happened but that is just my own personal interpretation.

Upper Paleolithic? Hmmm; when was that?

 

[dcharlesworth]

I don’t even think that the hypothesis that life randomly evolved by natural means from a primordial slime in some warm pond some-where, is contradictory to the Christian God.

Allbeit you are saying it isn’t in fact random. I don’t think you are on the right track here. We aren’t looking for the umpteen possible explainations, we are in fact looking for the one that is the truth. And I think the one you are proposing is possible, it seems to me to rob the Glory of God. We bear the image of God, I don’t think it makes sense we are really just grown up slime.

 

[steveandersen]

Upper Paleolithic? Hmmm; when was that?

It was a period in time in the late stone age roughly 50,000 to 10,000 years ago when humans suddenly showed a great increase in technological and artistic creativity.

Cave art, statues, the fish hook, the harpoon, the eyed needle & sewing. A whole range of specialty tools where developed then.

Prior to that human culture wasn’t very sophisticated and showed little variation.

Now this is of course not completely concurrent with the dates for the single origin theory but that doesn’t bother me.

 

[steveandersen]

Allbeit you are saying it isn’t in fact random. I don’t think you are on the right track here. We aren’t looking for the umpteen possible explainations, we are in fact looking for the one that is the truth. And I think the one you are proposing is possible, it seems to me to rob the Glory of God. We bear the image of God, I don’t think it makes sense we are really just grown up slime.

Evolution is not a truly random process.

Sure there are random events that occur in it like conception or asteroid strikes but there are some deterministic elements to it.

 

[freesoulhope]

Allbeit you are saying it isn’t in fact random. I don’t think you are on the right track here. We aren’t looking for the umpteen possible explainations, we are in fact looking for the one that is the truth. And I think the one you are proposing is possible. It seems to me to rob the Glory of God

For us, the system appears random, and is random for those who live in the system; but it is not ultimately random for God. Rather he creates a system that is internally random, but he puts in place boundaries and limits, so that the desired project eventually becomes actualised, given a certain amount of time; the billions of years that have elapsed reflect this possibility. I see it as being random indeed, but it is “guided” randomness, (if that makes senses). Slime did not give birth to us; rather it is the process by which organic things were given birth. It is God that nature ultimately owes its existence to.

If you look at the picture of evolution and the primordial slime from whence things came, in respect of the human assumption of “perfection”, so far as human beings perceive it, such as efficient systems, and a perfect Eden where animals don’t eat each other, then you will no doubt find it very hard to see the beauty and perfection in evolution.
But if you look at the natural world as a living breathing 3 dimensional work of art, that portrays a metaphorical message about are selves as well as God, I can very much see the beauty, the wisdom and the glory of God in it; and it does nothing to rob it; it is us who rob the glory of God, by putting are own created images above the image of God.

We bear the image of God, I don’t think it makes sense we are really just grown up slime.

Why? We reflect God because he is “I am”; it is in the self consciousness, having a personal-self; being an “I” instead of an “it”.
We have a “Soul”. It’s only by this means, that we can love; and the biological side of us, is the means by which God wishes us to “metaphorically” express that love (we are the metaphor). Gods glory, is transforming a meaningless un-loving, selfish, biological “object” in to a personal being capable of freely loving. The idea that our biological selves came from a primordial slime only helps to emphasize that fact, not degrade it.

 

[freesoulhope]

but there are some deterministic elements to it.

You mean they are determined by the boundries of natural law? Yes?

 

[freesoulhope]

single origin theory .

What is the Single-Origin-Theory?

 

[steveandersen]

What is the Single-Origin-Theory?

I’m not sure if I named it correctly

I think it is also called the recent single origin or the out of Africa theory or monogenesis.
Basically the theory that all modern humans came form a small and geographically limited population in Africa and that this population then spread out across the globe starting sometime in the last 70,000 to 150,000 years.
The alternative to this was the theory that humans arose independently in several locations

The Toba super volcano theory refines the monogenesis theory further and supposes that the Toba eruption about 75,000 years ago isolated human populations and changed conditions to favor modern humans. We are therefore all the decedents of a few individuals about 2000 generations ago.

 

[freesoulhope]

I’m not sure if I named it correctly

I think it is also called the recent single origin or the out of Africa theory or monogenesis.
Basically the theory that all modern humans came form a small and geographically limited population in Africa and that this population then spread out across the globe starting sometime in the last 70,000 to 150,000 years.
The alternative to this was the theory that humans arose independently in several locations

The Toba super volcano theory refines the monogenesis theory further and supposes that the Toba eruption about 75,000 years ago isolated human populations and changed conditions to favor modern humans. We are therefore all the decedents of a few individuals about 2000 generations ago.

I can see that the monogenesis theory is positive for black people (my being black myself), and i have come across many black people who have prided themselves over that theory cuase its a powerful tool against racism. I’m reluctant to think that the theory is not true, Yet, Science isn’t about the conficts between human beings, and i accept that to; neither can it be sympathetic to ideals, even biblical theological interps.(though i think that stem cell research is a no no).
I think what is more interesting about the Paeliolithic theory you spoke of before, is that it brings us alot closer to the biblical narritive in terms of historic value.

 

[hecd2]

I’ve continually noted that as far as mitochondria, she is our common ancestor.

Good of you to again to object to an argument I’ve not made

You seem to be dreadfully incapable of making arguments clearly. It must be rather tiresome to want to say one thing and to come out frequently saying something entirely different. Let’s look at what you actually said:

You DID say: “there may have been ‘others’ about her, but that does not negate the ‘bottleneck’ because their existence is not part of the chain of life to which we belong - FULL STOP”

You did NOT say: “there may have been ‘others’ about her, but that does not negate the ‘bottleneck’ because their existence is not part of the chain of life to which we belong as far as mitochondrial DNA goes which represents less than 1% of the DNA in each cell in our bodies.”

Seems quite clear to me and to anyone who reads normal English that you were using mtEve in support of the idea of a sole ancestor of living humans - a notion that is supported by other things you said quoted below.

Directly, this is true, but by implication we can see the possibility of a single ancestor, for as far as M-Eve is concerned, all the diverse people on the planet are inheritors of her mitochondria.

So what you were actually trying to do was to demonstrate by implication that we can see the possibility of a single ancestor of humans because we have a single ancestor of mitochondrial DNA - to quote you pretty much directly - ie to do exactly what you have denied vehemently that you are doing - viz to use scientific concepts to support biblical ideas.

If that is your idea, those of us who are familiar with the mtEve concept would have been able to help you to understand that the concept provides no support for a single genetic ancestor, by implication or otherwise.

Mitochondrial Eve is a Most Recent Common Ancestor. The concept of MRCA applies to any gene or groups of genes. Because of the peculiar nature of the inheritance of the mitochondrial genome, through the female line exclusively, the matrilineal MRCA has the odd property of being the sole ancestor of the gene group on question in her generation. Similarly, the peculiar inheritance pattern of the Y-chromosome (through males exclusively) means that patrilineal MRCA is the sole ancestor in his generation of the Y-chromosome in all men today. But these are peculiar gene groups inherited through the strictly maternal or paternal line. Generally, both our parents contribute to our genome in the autosomal genome, of which we have two copies (one from our father and one from our mother, with the added complications of random sorting and recombination ). The MRCA of any autosomal gene or group of genes will not be the only ancestors of that gene or group in the genomes of the human population in their generation - in general that gene or group of genes will have many ancestors and the MRCA will be the most recent ancestor that has been in the ancestry of all humans and MIGHT have contributed some genetic material to most or all humans (it is possible to be an ancestor and yet not contribute to genetic legacy). The MRCA of all humans alive today (ie the most recent person that stands in the ancestry of all living humans) would have lived some time after Y-chromosome Adam and before the dispersion from Africa of modern humans (some time after 75,000 years BP, and before about 50,000 years BP - and that date is likely to plummet to a few thousand years or less as people continue to interbreed in the modern world), but he or she would not have been the sole ancestors of living humans in their generation.

If you had understood a bit more of the science, you would not have made such an error by claiming that “by implication we can see the possibility of a single ancestor, for as far as M-Eve is concerned, all the diverse people on the planet are inheritors of her mitochondria”. Not only is this nonsense, as I have pointed out before, it also belies your claim not to use scientific concepts (sadly misunderstood in your case), in support of biblical narrative.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/Mitochondrial%20Eve.htm

 

[Monty_Arch]

Neither obviously.

Neanderthals have gone extinct and Cro-Magnon refers only to the earliest modern humans in Europe, which had to come after A&E.

So, perhaps Adam and Eve were Homo ergaster.

 

[hecd2]

You seem to be dreadfully incapable of making arguments clearly. It must be rather tiresome to want to say one thing and to come out frequently saying something entirely different. Let’s look at what you actually said:

You DID say: “there may have been ‘others’ about her, but that does not negate the ‘bottleneck’ because their existence is not part of the chain of life to which we belong - FULL STOP”

You did NOT say: “there may have been ‘others’ about her, but that does not negate the ‘bottleneck’ because their existence is not part of the chain of life to which we belong as far as mitochondrial DNA goes which represents less than 1% of the DNA in each cell in our bodies.”

Seems quite clear to me and to anyone who reads normal English that you were using mtEve in support of the idea of a sole ancestor of living humans - a notion that is supported by other things you said quoted below.

So what you were actually trying to do was to demonstrate by implication that we can see the possibility of a single ancestor of humans because we have a single ancestor of mitochondrial DNA - to quote you pretty much directly - ie to do exactly what you have denied vehemently that you are doing - viz to use scientific concepts to support biblical ideas.

If that is your idea, those of us who are familiar with the mtEve concept would have been able to help you to understand that the concept provides no support for a single genetic ancestor, by implication or otherwise.

Mitochondrial Eve is a Most Recent Common Ancestor. The concept of MRCA applies to any gene or groups of genes. Because of the peculiar nature of the inheritance of the mitochondrial genome, through the female line exclusively, the matrilineal MRCA has the odd property of being the sole ancestor of the gene group on question in her generation. Similarly, the peculiar inheritance pattern of the Y-chromosome (through males exclusively) means that patrilineal MRCA is the sole ancestor in his generation of the Y-chromosome in all men today. But these are peculiar gene groups inherited through the strictly maternal or paternal line. Generally, both our parents contribute to our genome in the autosomal genome, of which we have two copies (one from our father and one from our mother, with the added complications of random sorting and recombination ). The MRCA of any autosomal gene or group of genes will not be the only ancestors of that gene or group in the genomes of the human population in their generation - in general that gene or group of genes will have many ancestors and the MRCA will be the most recent ancestor that has been in the ancestry of all humans and MIGHT have contributed some genetic material to most or all humans (it is possible to be an ancestor and yet not contribute to genetic legacy). The MRCA of all humans alive today (ie the most recent person that stands in the ancestry of all living humans) would have lived some time after Y-chromosome Adam and before the dispersion from Africa of modern humans (some time after 75,000 years BP, and before about 50,000 years BP - and that date is likely to plummet to a few thousand years or less as people continue to interbreed in the modern world), but he or she would not have been the sole ancestors of living humans in their generation.

If you had understood a bit more of the science, you would not have made such an error by claiming that “by implication we can see the possibility of a single ancestor, for as far as M-Eve is concerned, all the diverse people on the planet are inheritors of her mitochondria”. Not only is this nonsense, as I have pointed out before, it also belies your claim not to use scientific concepts (sadly misunderstood in your case), in support of biblical narrative.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/Mitochondrial%20Eve.htm

Perhaps montalban missed this - bumping it for his benefit.

Alec

 

[antonyluby]

Which was demolished by me here:
evolutionpages.com/Mteve_not_biblical_eve.htm

Alec

Sorry, Alec, but I beg to differ. For me, this is far from a demolition job. The hectoring tone and ad hominem remarks betray a fundamental weakness of your position. Human beings are clearly designed - even Dawkins, in desperation, concedes that this appears to be the case.

Human beings are information-rich. What is the source of this information? Most likely, the author of what you call a book of ‘doubtful provenance.’

These are simple choices. Either you accept the evidence of your own eyes - human beings are designed - or you don’t. Either you follow reason - or you don’t. Either you follow God - or you don’t.

God bless.

 

[rossum]

Human beings are clearly designed - even Dawkins, in desperation, concedes that this appears to be the case.

The appearance of design is not always design. Design can be thought of as a process of selection between alternatives. Natural selection is a process of selection betwen alternatives, hence the appearance of design is not unexpected. You have to show that the appearance of design is due to an inteligent designer rather than the process of natural selection.

Human beings are information-rich. What is the source of this information? Most likely, the author of what you call a book of ‘doubtful provenance.’

The source of information in our genomes is the environment. Random mutation and natural selection make up a process which transfers information from the envoronment into the genome of the organism. Random mutations change the information in the genome. Where that changed information does not match the environment then natural selection will eliminate that information over the generations. Where that changed information happens to match the environment then natural selection will amplify and spread that information over the generations. This process repeated over many generations transfers information from the environment into the genomes of living organisms such as ourselves.

These are simple choices. Either you accept the evidence of your own eyes - human beings are designed - or you don’t. Either you follow reason - or you don’t. Either you follow God - or you don’t.

The problem for Intelligent Design is that is has got to the stage of “it sure looks designed to me”, but it has been unable to progress any further. All current attempts to provide a firmer basis have failed. Behe’s Irreducible Complexity has failed because it has been shown many times that IC can evolve. Even Behe’s own results show that IC can evolve. Dembski’s Explanatory Filter is flawed firstly because it fails to deal with the case of “we don’t know”, and secondly because Dembski has been unable to come up with a satisfactory, i.e. non-subjective, way to decide what is, and what is not, a “specification”. It also has the problem of how to distinguish real design from apparent design, which Dembski has so far as I am aware failed to address.

rossum