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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Allyson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
buffalo said:
[116](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/116.htm’)😉 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83
Click to expand...
Literal, but not in the sense that we think there were 7 days of creation, etc. Literal in the sense of conveying truths about the human condition. In order to get to those truths, the scriptures are subject to interpretation.
 
gama232 said:
That digital code has no chance of occurring on its own,
Click to expand...
You say “no chance”. That must mean that you have done the calculation of that piece of digital code forming.

Please show us your calculations. Without the actual calculations, all you have is personal opinion, which will not get you very far in a scientific discussion.

Science says that DNA formed through evolution, so your calculation will need to show the effects of both random mutation and natural selection. Population size is also a factor, and will need to be included.

I look forward to seeing your working.
 
gama232 said:
Human DNA is far too complex to have arisen by purely ‘natural’ forces.
Click to expand...
This seems to be an article of faith, not a conclusion drawn from evidence. My faith is that human DNA is an inevitable consequence of purely ‘natural’ forces. How can two such sincere convictions be mutually exclusive?
 
gama232 said:
Human DNA is far too complex to have arisen by purely ‘natural’ forces.
Click to expand...
All human DNA in the world has arisen by natural forces. When a boy meets a girl and they do what comes ‘naturally’ (after getting married of course) then more human DNA is produced by purely natural forces. Seven billion copies of human DNA, all produced by purely natural forces.
 
rossum said:
All human DNA in the world has arisen by natural forces. When a boy meets a girl and they do what comes ‘naturally’ (after getting married of course) then more human DNA is produced by purely natural forces. Seven billion copies of human DNA, all produced by purely natural forces.
Click to expand...
We are speaking of the advent of the code not its reproduction. (which is remarkably accurate in and of itself)
 
Hugh_Farey said:
Try Catholicism! It is founded on the rationality of God. He may be able to break all his own rules, but he never does.
Click to expand...
How many unborn children died when their mothers drowned in God’s flood? Or is killing an unborn child not against the rules? AIUI, killing the unborn is definitely against the rules.

The actions of the Old Testament God are not the actions of a God I want to follow. It smacks too much of “might is right” for me. YMMV.
 
Allyson said:
Literal, but not in the sense that we think there were 7 days of creation, etc. Literal in the sense of conveying truths about the human condition. In order to get to those truths, the scriptures are subject to interpretation.
Click to expand...
let us start here: Will you agree that up until recently the creation week has been continually taught and understood as 6 days by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church? Yes or No
 
rossum said:
How many unborn children died when their mothers drowned in God’s flood? Or is killing an unborn child not against the rules? AIUI, killing the unborn is definitely against the rules.

The actions of the Old Testament God are not the actions of a God I want to follow. It smacks too much of “might is right” for me. YMMV.
Click to expand...
There are so many that try and fashion God in their own image or along their own thinking. Pride goeth before the fall…
 
buffalo said:
We are speaking of the advent of the code not its reproduction. (which is remarkably accurate in and of itself)
Click to expand...
Human DNA arose through the natural forces of evolution from an almost-but-not-quite-human predecessor. We have found some possible candidates, and will no doubt find more. Were Neanderthals human? Heidelbergensis? Homo habilis? Where do you draw the boundary? Wherever you draw it, there will still be an almost-but-not-quite predecessor for it to evolve from.

If you are talking about the chemical code in DNA then you are a lot earlier than the Hominidae; you are back with bacteria and the first eukaryotes, billions of years ago.
 
rossum said:
Human DNA arose through the natural forces of evolution from an almost-but-not-quite-human
Click to expand...
Story telling. When we examine this in detail we start seeing the tremendous odds against enzyme function changes, protein folding, the chicken and egg question of ATP or the ATP Synthase motor. As we learn more the challenge to prove your claim only gets more difficult. Love to have you see the light and abandon this notion of NS and RM producing more and more complexity.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
let us start here: Will you agree that up until recently the creation week has been continually taught and understood as 6 days by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church? Yes or No
Click to expand...
No. The Church Fathers had a variety of views on the subject.
 
No need to bring up what makes up a day in Genesis.

Logic tells me that this is not a discussion about science. You know. Hi. Let me share some knowledge. Goodbye. It’s not that.

It’s a dogmatic - Why don’t you accept it? That said, I reject evolution as presented here. I have Pope Benedict to back me up. This is not my personal opinion.
 
When Theory and Experiment Collide

…As other scientists have found with other enzymes, it turned out not to be a snap. The technical details are reported in a paper just published in BIO-Complexity . [2] Here we’ll keep it simple.
Based on our experimental observations and on calculations we made using a published population model [3], we estimated that Darwin’s mechanism would need a truly staggering amount of time—a trillion trillion years or more—to accomplish the seemingly subtle change in enzyme function that we studied.
Now, if I were a Darwinist a result like this would bother me. I’m sure some of my fellow Darwinists would try to dismiss it as irrelevant… but that would bother me all the more.
The excuse for shrugging it off would, I expect, be that the transition we examined isn’t actually one that anyone thinks occurred in the history of life. That’s true, but it badly misses the point. As Ann and I made clear in the paper, our aim wasn’t to replicate a historical transition, but rather to identify what ought to be a relatively easy transition and find out how hard or easy it really is. We put it this way in the paper [2]:
Whether or not a particular conversion ever occurred as a paralogous innovation (or the direction in which it occurred if it did) is not the point of interest here. Rather, the point is to identify the kind of functional innovation that ought to be among the most feasible […] and then to assess how feasible this innovation is.
So, if I had a Darwinist alter ego, here’s the problem he’d be facing right now. To dismiss our study as irrelevant, he’d have to say (in effect) that he sees no inconsistency between these two assessments of the power of Darwin’s mechanism:
Click to expand...
 
Thank you for showing that what even scientists assume may happen does not in fact happen.
 
This is like Groundhog Day. Every morning I wake up and see the same ol’ same ol’ arguments from the usual suspects.

Sometimes I honestly despair.
 
I’ll end your suffering. I don’t accept evolution as it is explained here. buffalo has made some very good points on why it pays to see if it actually works as advertised.
 
o_mlly said:
Well, let me test that. Just pinched myself, it hurt and I posted my experience. So, yep, I’m a real intelligent effect.
Click to expand...
So it was intelligent to pinch yourself? That is not my idea of intelligent.

Nor do I think it causes you to be intelligent, intelligence is not an effect of the pinch.

Intelligent effect is unrealistic.
 
Freddy said:
This is like Groundhog Day. Every morning I wake up and see the same ol’ same ol’ arguments from the usual suspects.

Sometimes I honestly despair.
Click to expand...
Maybe the evo folks could add some empirical evidence to the table. So far, no cigar. Now, as we learn more even the Royal Society is moving on and going to EES.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top