Reconciling Humani Generis with the human genetic data showing that there never were just two first parents

[buffalo]

At least natural claims are testable, so we can be more sure of those facts.

In the case of evo it is not empirically testable. Gravity is empirically testable, so is much of chemistry. Observable, repeatable and predictable.

For the sake of argument, what will humans look like in say 100K years?

Many times the same evidence is debated and conclusions can vary,

How can we empirically test the validity of Adam and Eve? I would be interested in the experiment.

 

[buffalo]

So watch it. I was not a part of your previous discussion, and I am not going to dig for them.

You think your part is tedious? I have to go through the entire debate on every new thread. (mostly)

We agree, the Catholic understanding of God is much deeper and personal.

 

[Allyson]

You think your part is tedious? I have to go through the entire debate on every new thread. (mostly)

You have mentioned what you have said in other threads a couple of time now. My point is that there is no purpose to bringing up conversations that I was not a part of because I have no idea of what you said before. Further, it is not my responsibility to look for those threads to find out what you said. If you find having this conversation “tedious,” then you can bow out now and you should refrain from engaging in similar threads in the future. However, I suspect that you enjoy these conversations, so you are just going to have to deal with repeating yourself.

So, have you see the playlist I linked to before? Or are you willing to see if it provides a perspective you may not have heard before? I plan to read the article you linked to. It only seems fair that you can watch at least the first 10 videos to get the flavor (~1.5 hours); preferably you would watch all of them in time. You may find that it is something different from your previous conversations. Maybe? Maybe not? I have no idea.

I do enjoy these conversations as long as I have the sense that my interlocutors are open-minded. As I have already said in conversation with you before, I am very familiar with ID ideas, so I am in a good position to accept or reject them. Every argument you have brought up so far I know well, and I eventually learned the weaknesses of said position.

 

[buffalo]

Every argument you have brought up so far I know well, and I eventually learned the weaknesses of said position.

These would interest me. I too know the evo arguments very well and science is now showing the weaknesses. It is these papers that I link.

If I remember, you cited Dover which is now old news. I would love to hear what you have learned and rejected since then.

 

[Dovekin]

We are finding more and more evidence to support the arrow in the devolution direction.

What does this mean? How do you distinguish devolution from evolution?

My impression is that change is part of evolution. The only arrow is that of natural selection, toward “survival” Of the “fittest.” The only related state is alive or dead, not evolved or devolved.

 

[Allyson]

Exactly, and evolution is not about only getting better over time. It is just life finding a way.

 

[Allyson]

I will try and put something together for you tomorrow, but in short, what did ID in for me was the fact that, while its proponents claimed that it was not creationism, that is in fact what it was. It was a deception devised after Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) in which the Supreme Court held that the state law in question mandating teaching of “creation science” in schools along side evolution was unconstitutional under the establishment clause. Creation science was just an attempt to back door religion into public schools. Originally, drafts of Of Pandas and People, the book at issue in Dover, was a creation science text, but when Edwards happened, the term Intelligent Design was manufactured and replaced all references to creation science with the new term. This, without even changing the definition, which was read out loud in court as the drafts had been requested during discovery. This is why the school district lost: it was shown in court that intelligent design was an attempt to get around a constitutional bar.

Given what initially attracted me to the ID hypothesis - that it claimed not to be creationism - I am very much justified in kicking it to the curb for the deception.

There is more, but I will leave it there for tonight with a question for you to ponder.

Given that evolution by natural selection is an explanation of a natural process that is decidedly not progressive by its own terms; isn’t the fact that what we see in the world - excessive and unnecessary complexity with happy accidents - more consistent with a blind natural process than an intelligent designer? Would an intelligent designer create a process that was subject to devolution and extinction?

 

[EndTimes]

But a three allele mutation can make a change in species.

Any mutation… is a change…

 

[EndTimes]

Science cannot speak to the supernatural. It is limited to the natural.

Science is the product of HomoSapiens aka HumanKind…

The Universe and Life are part of the Evidences.

Jesus’ Time on Earth - Is very strong evidence.

 

[buffalo]

Would an intelligent designer create a process that was subject to devolution and extinction?

God said His creation was good. Then original sin entered the world and the degrdation began.

 

[EndTimes]

God said His creation was good. Then original sin entered the world and the degrdation began.

Exactly…

All of Creation has suffered from the time of the Fall…

And ‘things’ have been going along - according to Script(ures) …

_

 

[buffalo]

Exactly, and evolution is not about only getting better over time. It is just life finding a way.

That we call adaptation. No one argues it.

 

[EndTimes]

That we call adaptation.

Sounds simplistically neat… yet… in genomic terms - how does that apply to Humani Generis?

Adapting? Guided awareness … ?

Humani Generis Still Stands Strong. Yes?

_

 

[rossum]

That we call adaptation. No one argues it.

What we call evolution, you variously call devolution or adaptation. You are trying to argue against evolution by using different words.

That is Humpty Dumpty argumentation.

 

[Allyson]

Who says the process is blind?

I was asking a question to - I hoped - provoke deep critical thought. It was a question based on the recent exchange.

As far as we can rationally tell, the evolutionary process in nature is blind. That is not inconsistent with believing that there is a God who put that process in place. I was attempting to contrast that view with Intelligent Design/Creationism, which tends to be over simplistic in claiming that complexity is the sign of intelligent design when complexity is more easily explained by blind experimentation by a non-rational agent.

 

[Allyson]

God said His creation was good. Then original sin entered the world and the degrdation began.

This was the quick response I expected - I know the creations story very well. I took a class on Genesis 1-11. So then, my next question for you is. How do you account for 3.5 Billion years of death and struggle before man came along? The evolutionary process is the same today as it has been for 3.5 billion years and several mass extinction events due to super-volcanoes and climate change. Is Original Sin somehow retroactive.

Have you had a chance to look at the playlist yet? I would really like to know because it can be a good starting point for a more critical discussion.

 

[buffalo]

Have you had a chance to look at the playlist yet? I would really like to know because it can be a good starting point for a more critical discussion.

Yes. I viewed two or three of the many he made. Immediately I noted there was much story telling which is consistent with what the evo community has been preaching for years. The a priori assumption in his story that it must have happened this way so his story will conform. This is akin to having a thousand piece puzzle and you have only a few pieces. Now you think you know what the finished puzzle will look like so you make the puzzle pieces fit.

He makes the claim cladistics is the STONGEST evidence we have for macro-evolution. Genetic studies is invalidating much of it.

From my earlier post:

“another unexpected finding from the study—species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there’s nothing much in between."

“If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies,” said Thaler. “They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space.”

The absence of “in-between” species is something that also perplexed Darwin, he said."

Read more at: Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution

 

[buffalo]

Humani Generis Still Stands Strong. Yes?

Yes. Very few people read the entire thing.

1. If anyone examines the state of affairs outside the Christian fold, he will easily discover the principle trends that not a few learned men are following. Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all things, and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution. Communists gladly subscribe to this opinion so that, when the souls of men have been deprived of every idea of a personal God, they may the more efficaciously defend and propagate their dialectical materialism.
2. Such fictitious tenets of evolution which repudiate all that is absolute, firm and immutable, have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy which, rivaling idealism, immanentism and pragmatism, has assumed the name of existentialism, since it concerns itself only with existence of individual things and neglects all consideration of their immutable essences.
3. Now Catholic theologians and philosophers, whose grave duty it is to defend natural and supernatural truth and instill it in the hearts of men, cannot afford to ignore or neglect these more or less erroneous opinions. Rather they must come to understand these same theories well, both because diseases are not properly treated unless they are rightly diagnosed, and because sometimes even in these false theories a certain amount of truth is contained, and, finally, because these theories provoke more subtle discussion and evaluation of philosophical and theological truths.
4. If philosophers and theologians strive only to derive such profit from the careful examination of these doctrines, there would be no reason for any intervention by the Teaching Authority of the Church. However, although We know that Catholic teachers generally avoid these errors, it is apparent, however, that some today, as in apostolic times, desirous of novelty, and fearing to be considered ignorant of recent scientific findings, try to withdraw themselves from the sacred Teaching Authority and are accordingly in danger of gradually departing from revealed truth and of drawing others along with them into error.

 

[Dovekin]

Now Catholic theologians and philosophers, whose grave duty it is to defend natural and supernatural truth and instill it in the hearts of men, cannot afford to ignore or neglect these more or less erroneous opinions. Rather they must come to understand these same theories well, both because diseases are not properly treated unless they are rightly diagnosed, and because sometimes even in these false theories a certain amount of truth is contained, and, finally, because these theories provoke more subtle discussion and evaluation of philosophical and theological truths.

I am not in a position to judge which theories are erroneous, but that does not seem to matter. As you note, HG says considering even erroneous theories can provoke ”more subtle discussion” and the evaluation of truths.

IOW, even if human physical bodies were introduced supernaturally, there can be a benefit to discussing alternatives. Can two humans produce the genetic diversity visible today? Does the evolutionary timeline constructed by theorists show any sign of an abrupt change that would correspond to a supernatural intervention? Are there bright line distinctions between species?

How do we evaluate philosophical and theological truths instead of just reasserting them? Can we rule out a blind watchmaker? How does human intelligence relate to animal intelligence?

 

[buffalo]

I am not in a position to judge which theories are erroneous, but that does not seem to matter. As you note, HG says considering even erroneous theories can provoke ”more subtle discussion” and the evaluation of truths.

IOW, even if human physical bodies were introduced supernaturally, there can be a benefit to discussing alternatives. Can two humans produce the genetic diversity visible today? Does the evolutionary timeline constructed by theorists show any sign of an abrupt change that would correspond to a supernatural intervention? Are there bright line distinctions between species?

How do we evaluate philosophical and theological truths instead of just reasserting them? Can we rule out a blind watchmaker? How does human intelligence relate to animal intelligence?

HG encouraged the research and discussion of the theory.

Yes - two humans can produce the genetic diversity we see. In fact, Sanford states it is God’s gift to humanity. https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1079&context=icc_proceedings

Yes, those who have been studying population genetics show conformity with the bible.
One of the issues here and on other boards is research contrary to the existing paradigm is often shot down with ad hominems rather than discussing the actual paper and its conclusions.

Yes, there a vast distances between species which increases every tim ethe lineage splits (speciation).

Revelation does not change. Science is provisional.

Pope JPII - Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish.