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

[Freddy]

Freddy:

I left my church when I was quite young.

You did this for the sake of provisional science reasoned by flawed humans?

No. I left because, even as a relatively young boy, I knew that the simple metaphors for good and evil and for the process of creation and Man’s position in the grand scheme of things were stories that weren’t meant to be taken literally. I didn’t. But when I realised that most of those who were teaching me did take these Sunday school stories at face value then I knew it was time to leave.

Nobody came along with scientific denouncements of the flood or a young earth or Adam and Eve to tempt me away from my belief. They didn’t need to. 1 Corinthians 13:11.

 

[buffalo]

No one here has argued that evolution only includes going from less complex to more complex at all times.

Great, And it lends more support to the core elements that life shares and is there right at the get go.

 

[Allyson]

Great, And it lends more support to the core elements that life shares and is there right at the get go.

Actually, it shows that your view of evolution is based on false premises about what evolution actually does.

 

[buffalo]

“The creation account tells us, then,that the world is a product of creative Reason.” - perhaps the pope would like IDvolution. Pope Benedict: Easter brings us to the side of reason, freedom and love “It is not the case that in the expanding universe, at a late stage, in some tiny corner of the cosmos, there evolved randomly some species of living being capable of reasoning and of trying to find rationality within creation, or to bring rationality into it. If man were merely a random product of evolution in some place on the margins of the universe, then his life would make no sense or might even be a chance of nature. But no, Reason is there at the beginning: creative, divine Reason.” Pope Benedict XVI Easter Homily

 

[Allyson]

Pope Benedict XVI Easter Homily

He is speaking to theology. Not to the science.

 

[buffalo]

Actually, it shows that your view of evolution is based on false premises about what evolution actually does.

It always amounts to the same thing - you just don’t understand how evolution works. :sigh

Here we see a more complex animal becoming less complex, which is what I have argued for a very long time. This supports my position of what happens with continued lineage splitting. Quite franky my dear - we are devolving.

 

[buffalo]

He is speaking to theology.

The religion of evolution. Thanks for that.

 

[gama232]

Thanks. Here, Pope Benedict combines what science presents with Divine revelation. No, not some planet somewhere that just happened to… No.

His answer is the best answer.

 

[gama232]

No, he exposes science as being the inadequate, incomplete, and therefore, wrong explanation.

 

[gama232]

From the book Truth and Tolerance.

“No one will be able to cast serious doubt upon the scientific evidence for micro-evolutionary processes. R. Junker and S. Scherer, in their ‘critical reader’ on evolution, have this to say: ‘Many examples of such developmental steps [micro-evolutionary processes] are known to us from natural processes of variation and development. The research done on them by evolutionary biologists produced significant knowledge of the adaptive capacity of living systems, which seems marvelous.’ They tell us, accordingly, that one would therefore be quite justified in describing the research of early development as the reigning monarch among biological disciplines. … Within the teaching about evolution itself, the problem emerges at the point of transition from micro- to macro-evolution, on which point Szathmáry and Maynard Smith, both convinced supporters of an all-embracing theory of evolution, nonetheless declare that: ‘There is no theoretical basis for believing that evolutionary lines become more complex with time; and there is also no empirical evidence that this happens.’”

 

[buffalo]

Our Fragile Intellect​

Trends in Genetics references this paper - Our Fragile Intellect.(download) What is interesting about this is that we peaked 2000-6000 years ago and now are devolving. Or… we started out pristine with the preternatural gifts of bodily immortality and freedom from sickness and have lost it.

Abstract​

New developments in genetics, anthropology, and neurobiology predict that a very large number of genes underlie our intellectual and emotional abilities, making these abilities genetically surprisingly fragile.

“I would wager that if an average citizen from Athens of
1000 BC were to appear suddenly among us, he or she
would be among the brightest and most intellectually alive
of our colleagues and companions, with a good memory, a
broad range of ideas, and a clear-sighted view of important
issues. Furthermore, I would guess that he or she would be
among the most emotionally stable of our friends and
colleagues. I would also make this wager for the ancient
inhabitants of Africa, Asia, India, or the Americas, of
perhaps 2000–6000 years ago. The basis for my wager
comes from new developments in genetics, anthropology,
and neurobiology that make a clear prediction that our
intellectual and emotional abilities are genetically surprisingly
fragile.”

and

"Taken together, the large number of genes required for
intellectual and emotional function, and the unique susceptibility
of these genes to loss of heterozygosity, lead me
to conclude that we, as a species, are surprisingly intellectually
fragile and perhaps reached a peak 2000–6000 years
ago. But if we are losing our intellectual abilities, how did
we acquire them in the first place? This will be the topic of
the next section [15]. "

 

[buffalo]

Human Genome in Meltdown​

A previous post here - Dr. John Sanford “Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome” Below is additional support for IDvolution. Some quotes from Dr John Sanford on genetic entropy. Very consistent with IDvolution and Scripture. To get the full effect take the time to view the videos. Listen carefully where he states it is “kind of a trade secret of population geneticists.” The design of the genome is astonishing and shows intelligence, design and purpose. "We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is a thought of God."Pope Benedict XVI

and now we have this in Nature. Analysis of 6,515 exomes reveals the recent origin of most human protein-coding variants 86% arose in the last 5-10,000 years.
and

Front Loading? Genetic Entropy? Complexity to simplicity?​

More support for design and IDvolution.

Front Loading? Genetic Entropy? Complexity to simplicity? Devolution. Adam and Eve with preternatural gifts to modern day humans? Every day now more evidence comes in supporting IDvolution and design present at the beginning.

Research suggests that evolution sometimes meant becoming simpler, not more complex

(Phys.org)—The view that animals have become more complex over time could be a thing of the past, according to the latest research.

The new evidence, from scientists at the University of St Andrews, suggests that some modern day animals may have evolved instead by becoming less complex.

The researchers say that the discovery, of ghostly remains of gene neighbourhoods that once existed in a 550 million year old ancestor, suggests that the earliest animal was more complex than previously thought.

The findings, published later today in the journal, Current Biology, appear to contradict the common perception of evolution – that creatures have advanced by becoming genetically more complex over time.

more…

 

[buffalo]

What is interesting about this is that we peaked and now are devolving. Or… we started out pristine with the preternatural gifts of bodily immortality and freedom from sickness and have lost it.

 

[Dovekin]

I ask that you not rewrite what I wrote

I quoted you word for word? How is that rewriting?

 

[buffalo]

Humans may have lost abilities that our ancestors had​

If our ancestors had the ability to regenerate teeth and limbs and now we can’t; would this be evolution? Or is it devolution?

From ScienceDaily:

Genetic elements that drive regeneration uncovered​

Limb or organ regrowth may be hidden in our genes​

“If you trace our evolutionary tree way back to its roots – long before the shedding of gills or the development of opposable thumbs – you will likely find a common ancestor with the amazing ability to regenerate lost body parts.”

“Lucky descendants of this creature, including today’s salamanders or zebrafish, can still perform the feat, but humans lost much of their regenerative power over millions of years of evolution.” (hmmmm)

“We want to find more of these types of elements so we can understand what turns on and ultimately controls the program of regeneration,” said Poss (programs are designed)

 

[Freddy]

Humans may have lost abilities that our ancestors had​

If our ancestors had the ability to regenerate teeth and limbs and now we can’t; would this be evolution? Or is it devolution?

From ScienceDaily:

Genetic elements that drive regeneration uncovered​

Limb or organ regrowth may be hidden in our genes​

“If you trace our evolutionary tree way back to its roots – long before the shedding of gills or the development of opposable thumbs – you will likely find a common ancestor with the amazing ability to regenerate lost body parts.”

We had a common ancestor millions of years ago? That had gills? That was a different species? What the…? But how can…? Do you mean…? But I don’t…It makes no…didn’t you say…

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[buffalo]

The death of NeoDarwinism, No Selfish Gene​

“The genome… is best described as a database used by organisms to generate the functions that you and I and others study as physiology.”

“We inherit much more than DNA”

"The number of possible interactions , the number of possible circuits you could form 25,000 genes is 10^70,000. There wouldn’t be enough time over the whole billions of years of the evolution of life on earth for nature to have explored but more than a tiny fraction of those."

On Dawkins and the selfish gene - “He is totally confused.” “He has misused a metaphor” “He [Dawkins] is philosophically naive and I am afraid he has misled many people for a very considerable period of time.” 40 minutes in

“There are no good or bad genes”

“There are reasons those genes are there”

“The great majority of people we are talking to were educated in biology 30 or 40 years ago and they really have no idea of the sea change that has occurred.”

"the house of cards, the citadel if you like is empty, but many people still do not know that." 54 min

 

[Allyson]

It always amounts to the same thing - you just don’t understand how evolution works. :sigh

Here we see a more complex animal becoming less complex, which is what I have argued for a very long time. This supports my position of what happens with continued lineage splitting. Quite franky my dear - we are devolving.

That is because you appear not to understand how evolution works. I know, because at one time I was drawn in by ID too, and took positions (though not as extreme as yours) that made me look ignorant.

The religion of evolution. Thanks for that.

Uh no.

 

[buffalo]

Here is for you @Allyson
The First Gene: The Birth of Programming, Messaging and Formal Control

“The First Gene: The Birth of Programming, Messaging and Formal Control” is a peer-reviewed anthology of papers that focuses , for the first time, entirely on the following difficult scientific questions:…

Abstract: Could a composome, chemoton, or RNA vesicular protocell come to life in the absence of formal instructions, controls and regulation? Redundant, low-informational selfordering is not organization. Organization must be programmed. Intertwined circular constraints (e.g. complex hypercylces), even with negative and positive feedback, do not steer physicochemical reactions toward formal function or metabolic success. Complex hypercycles quickly and selfishly exhaust sequence and other phase spaces of potential metabolic resources.

"Chance and necessity are completely inadequate to describe the most important elements of what we repeatedly observe in intra-cellular life, especially. Science must acknowledge the reality and validity not only of a very indirect, post facto natural selection, but of purposeful selection for potential function as a fundamental category of reality. To disallow purposeful selection renders the practice of mathematics and science impossible. "

A new technical book, The First Gene, edited by Gene Emergence Project director David L. Abel, …" Materialists will not like this book because its arguments are 100% scientific, devoid of religious, political, or cultural concerns, and most importantly, compelling.

From reading The First Gene, a number of minimal theoretical and material requirements for life emerge:

*High levels of prescriptive information -
*Programming -
*Symbol systems and language -
*Molecules which can carry this information and programming
*Highly unlikely sequences of functional information -
*Formal function -
*An “agent” capable of making “intentional choices of mind” which can “choose” between various options, select for future function, and instantiate these requirements for life. -

 

[buffalo]

cont’d

Anti-ID conspiracy theorists love to say that those pesky creationists are always changing their terminology to get around the First Amendment. ID’s intellectual pedigree refutes that charge, but The First Gene adds more reasons why that charge should not be taken seriously. The book offers highly technical, strictly scientific arguments about the nature of information, information processing, and biological functionality. Even a cursory read of this book shows that its contributors are just thinking about doing good science. And this science leads them to the conclusion that blind and unguided material causes cannot produce the complexity we observe in life. Some agent capable of making choices is required to produce the first life.