E
EndTimes
Guest
No… On its lonesome - Natural Selection results in a LOSS of Bio-Info…
Anywho… Darwin’s argument requires/required the COMBO of two notions…
Natural Selection AND? >… Mutation of NEW Bio-Info
_
Reconciling Humani Generis with the human genetic data showing that there never were just two first parents
- Status
Anywho… Darwin’s argument requires/required the COMBO of two notions…
Natural Selection AND? >… Mutation of NEW Bio-Info
_
B
buffalo
Guest
Edward Blythe came up with natural selection.
E
EndTimes
Guest
and the false conclusions drawn from the well-known Galapogos pigeons story,
is a great example of (temporary) loss of Genetic Info
due to that example of (call it) natural selection
_
A
Allyson
Guest
There were actually several people who had similar ideas, but the phrase “natural selection” was at the crux of Darwin’s theory, so it is absurd to say “natural selection” is opposed to “Darwinism.” That was the context of the comment.
Side note: Blythe did not call it natural selection, but he got credit in the book for his ideas…
A
Allyson
Guest
Which happens, so…what is the problem?
It was finches, which, btw, were not all that significant for Darwin. There was a later book by someone else that was about “Darwin’s Finches.” The genes don’t necessarily get lost. The beak sizes of the populations fluctuate depending on the food available.
So, do you have anything to say on the main topic of my OP?
E
EndTimes
Guest
Yes finches… Thank you… my “pigeons” didn’t feel right…
Darwin’s demands for future fossile finds which would prove out his opinion
- never came anywhere even remotely close to pass…
I’ve commented on the OP -
Adam (male human) and Eve (female human) are indeed the first parents of humans…
)
A
Allyson
Guest
This is not the case, unless you think that the evidence required is a perfectly preserved fossil of literally everything. There are many many transitional critters that fit where they were predicted to be.
This is also not the case, and this is also a hard sticking point to get past (I know). It is hard to conceive of something happening that did not happen in our lifetime. However, we can know it did happen because we are here, we have fossils, and we can compare DNA. Back in deep time, life took many paths, and there is no good evidence that this did not happen.
Okay, so is it essential for them to be the only first parents? Or can there have been other parents genetically speaking? Otherwise you have an extreme bottleneck. Would it be enough that they were just the first two with souls, per the previous conversation on this thread?
Is you opposition to evolution primarily driven by your interpretation of Genesis? If so, why?
Last edited:
E
EndTimes
Guest
No there’s not… Even a 1000-point mutation doesn’t make for a change in Species - let alone Genus.
The finch reality - pushed by so-called top of the line evolutionists - as being proof positive of (call it) macro-evolution (aka all life forms evolving from a single “simple” (no life form is simple) common ancestor) aka Evolution! … - via their extrapolative story of what did not occur - into the future - of their historical (versus empirical) ‘science’ yarn…
IF you carefully read Humani Genesis - you’ll see that YES… Adam (male - first human with a soul) and Eve (female - first human with a soul) - are Yes - the First Parents of HumanKind… Created by Yes - GOD… Did God mabye use “Apes without Souls”? Read on
- 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. 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.
- 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.
- When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents.
- Therefore, whatever of the popular narrations have been inserted into the Sacred Scriptures must in no way be considered on a par with myths or other such things, which are more the product of an extravagant imagination than of that striving for truth and simplicity which in the Sacred Books, also of the Old Testament, is so apparent that our ancient sacred writers must be admitted to be clearly superior to the ancient profane writers.
R
rossum
Guest
But a three allele mutation can make a change in species. See Tauber and Tauber (1977) Sympatric Speciation Based on Allelic Changes at Three Loci.
B
buffalo
Guest
Science cannot speak to the supernatural. It is limited to the natural.
Science cannot comment on the supernatural creation of Adam and Eve.
However, science can tell us that it is indeed possible for Adam and Eve to be our first parents.
I am not sure what you are baffled by.
B
buffalo
Guest
Yes. That is exactly what he was saying. Study away!
The CC has been the patron of science since the beginning.
B
buffalo
Guest
Yes, this is what many here are missing. These temporary benefits are outweighed by the long term damage.
B
buffalo
Guest
No empirical evidence can be shown by definition.
Outside of science, we rely on logic and reason.
A
Allyson
Guest
There are so many issues here.
First. Yes there are transitional species in the fossil record. See: Here and Here for some examples.
Second, the only people who think that Darwin’s finches are the the only proof of evolution are people who have never moved beyond badly taught or badly remembered HS biology. It is time for you to move on from that mode of thinking.
Third, I reread HG twice before posting my OP, and I quoted paragraph 37 in whole in the OP. As I read paragraph 36 certainly leaves open the possibility theologically speaking, that God could have granted souls to 2 ape ancestors. However, I still do not have a clear idea of your answers to my questions above:
You can also poke around on this website that is related to the playlist:
https://phylogenyexplorerproject.com/
Right now, you keep putting the cart before the horse. There is no good reason not to recognize where humans fit in in the 3 billion years of natural history where life has existed on this planet. That we evolved is a purely natural phenomenon regardless of whether one believes that God directed or set the process in place. It can be studied through science. All that the Church really reserved to the supernatural in HG was the claim that God creates the soul of each person (“true man”) separately and apart from the procreative act. On this basis, there is no reason to reject what we can know about the natural world by applying our reason.
First. Yes there are transitional species in the fossil record. See: Here and Here for some examples.
Second, the only people who think that Darwin’s finches are the the only proof of evolution are people who have never moved beyond badly taught or badly remembered HS biology. It is time for you to move on from that mode of thinking.
Third, I reread HG twice before posting my OP, and I quoted paragraph 37 in whole in the OP. As I read paragraph 36 certainly leaves open the possibility theologically speaking, that God could have granted souls to 2 ape ancestors. However, I still do not have a clear idea of your answers to my questions above:
For both you and @buffalo, I highly recommend this playlist about cladistics. Episodes run between ~7 and ~18 mins. It is well put together, and if you watch all of the episodes to date and then can provide science based reasons for why evolution is not true; at that point we can continue this discussion.
You can also poke around on this website that is related to the playlist:
https://phylogenyexplorerproject.com/
Right now, you keep putting the cart before the horse. There is no good reason not to recognize where humans fit in in the 3 billion years of natural history where life has existed on this planet. That we evolved is a purely natural phenomenon regardless of whether one believes that God directed or set the process in place. It can be studied through science. All that the Church really reserved to the supernatural in HG was the claim that God creates the soul of each person (“true man”) separately and apart from the procreative act. On this basis, there is no reason to reject what we can know about the natural world by applying our reason.
B
buffalo
Guest
It has been studied by science. Current science is challenging the old thinking.
At the Royal Society meeting there was an exchange, (which I have linked many times) where natural selection was being discussed as an intelligent agent. Who would have thought? They did not want to go any further so they broke for tea time.
Another exchange with Eva Jablonka, she said we can investigate as long as we do not cite God (paraphrasing). From a practical point of view - how many billions in research to end up with God? They will keep it going though since there is a lot of money in it.
B
buffalo
Guest
That would not be empirical as science experiment would require. It does count as evidence. God does not subject Himself to laying on a lab table so we can inspect Him.
Bingo! Science by its own definition has a limited say about the universe, limited by our 5 senses, 3 dimensions and time, further clouded by imperfect human reasoning.
A
Allyson
Guest
Was that an analogical use, metaphorical use, or equivocal use of the term “intelligent agent?”
I am going to say that it was not equivocal. The appearance of intelligence does not equal intelligent. Once you make it equivocal, you open the supernatural up to being testable by science. You cannot both claim that the supernatural is NOT testable by science and then also claim that science will “end up with God.” Do you not see the problem you are setting for yourself?I have no problem with the appearance of intelligence in nature. There is also the appearance of a lot of bad intelligence in nature. As I have said before, creationists make too much hay out of that meeting, and I suspect that is also why Eva Jablonka suggests that the term “God” not be used. There have been too many instances of scientists using God in a metaphorical sense and then being misquoted or misused by believers. This was the case with Einstein.
A
Allyson
Guest
Then how can you be sure that you can reason to the existence of a God? (asking for a friend)
B
buffalo
Guest
You can only go so far. Logic takes us to a first cause. We call this first cause God.
B
buffalo
Guest
Yet, it shows us that natural selection operating on random mutations can be designed. Natural selection has not been thought to operate with designed purpose, but now it is. That in itself is interesting.
- Status