R
rossum
Guest
Not exactly. More like: “What my denomination (among the many available) says about how to interpret what God says.”
There are a great many different interpretations of what God says out there.
Reconciling Humani Generis with the human genetic data showing that there never were just two first parents
- Status
There are a great many different interpretations of what God says out there.
R
rossum
Guest
You own religion shows that you are incorrect: God exists and God does not have a cause.
A single counterexample is enough to show that you are wrong. Have you never heard of the Kalaam argument before?
D
Dovekin
Guest
How God has shaped us is our bottom line.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Our issue is not whether evolution can increase the information content in DNA but whether any and all DNA contains some digital-organized-information. Do you propose that some information-less DNA exists?
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Perhaps they do, but it is a tenet of Science that the laws of nature do not contradict themselves (they are coherent) and that they apply always and everywhere (they are universally relevant).
Of course. A virus is no less one of “God’s creatures” than a dolphin.
I doubt if Pope Pius XII knew enough about the various theories of evolution to be able to make clear the acceptable from the unacceptable. I suspect he assumed they were all atheistic. John Paul II knew enough to understand that some theories of evolution were compatible with Christianity.
Of course he does. Why do you suppose they were thought to be random? It wasn’t just a guess.
Splendid. Now all you have to do is to find out what he says - and persuade me that you have understood him correctly.
It’s possible. Why is it relevant to the discussion?
D
Dovekin
Guest
I agree with you, but the language is certainly confusing.
A human soul is “rational”, which means it has (name removed by moderator)uts that are not material like the senses, to use a computer analogy. That is, we can think about unicorns, which do not exist, as well as we think about horses which we have seen. This distance from the material world is fundamental to why a rational soul is considered immortal if I understand Aquinas correctly.
A human body with a human soul is a single entity. A hominid body may be identical to a human body in every physical detail but with an animal soul rather than a rational soul. The situation may have been that there were many hominid bodies, indistinguishable by any physical criteria, two of which were human because their souls were rational, distinguishable only by metaphysical properties. Science sees many, faith sees only two, which is the point you are making I think.
Humani Generis still stands!
There are still questions of course. Could two scientifically identical bodies have different souls? How does breeding affect souls? Etc. if it were not for the static of people who insist that physical and metaphysical processes are indistinguishable, we might have discussed some of these.
D
Dovekin
Guest
I thought that was what you were proposing, and @Hugh_Farey was saying the opposite?
O
o_mlly
Guest
The state of Pius XII’s scientific knowledge was not the point of my HG citation. I re-post for your consideration:
Do you think Pius XII knowledge of the metaphysical first principles inadequate?
I would like to know just that. If randomness was not “just a guess” then what is the argument/evidence in support? If no argument or evidence is given then randomness is merely asserted. The three possible states of mind regarding the nature of mutation: random, non-random, unknown. We need reasons to assert anything but ignorance.
Last edited:
O
o_mlly
Guest
To understand the progression of thought, please follow my exchange with Rossum.
R
rossum
Guest
All DNA contains chemical information. It is your insistence on “digital” and “organized” that are the problem. You are trying to define the information in DNA in such a way that it has to be designed. It is the implication of design that I have a problem with.
As an example, the poly-A sections of DNA: “AAAAAA … AAAA” for sometimes hundreds of base pairs have a known chemical cause, and also contain information. That information is chemically caused.
R
rossum
Guest
Yes, that was indeed my point. I suspect that was also the Pope’s point, hence “true humans”. The Pope has some very good scientific advisors who no doubt had some (name removed by moderator)ut into Humani Generis.
As I read HG, any human with at least one ‘true human’ parent would be given a soul by God. That way souls would spread through the population until no unsouled humans were left.
For example, science shows we are all descended from Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosome Adam. If any ancestor of either of those two individuals were a true human with a human soul, then all their descendants are also true humans. So all living humans will have souls.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Are you taking us deeper into the weeds of DNA to clarify or obfuscate? My reading shows the poly-A tail is not a section of DNA but mRNA. ?
Perhaps the word “digital” to you means only numeric or even binary numeric. Substitute “discrete” if that helps as all discrete information is digital. A digital system is a system that stores data in a discrete way.
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
You are correct, it is normally a part of mRNA. However, human DNA contains fragments of retroviral DNA which can copy mRNA back into DNA, in the opposite direction to normal. That is how those poly-A mRNA tails get into DNA.
That is just one example of an unintelligent chemical process increasing the information present in DNA.
G
gama232
Guest
Too much fiction is being posted here. Pope Pius XII was right. He carefully explained the value of human reason, and how error can occur.
Here, science is separated from God. It can’t be. Communion and Stewardship tells every Catholic that. Evolution, as defined here, is a concept suitable for atheists. It is about human biological robots. About human bodies that die and rot. No God. No judgment. So it is promoting atheism - nothing more. How living things function cannot be explained by the Royal Society. How behaviors appear in living things to interact with other living things cannot be explained. But that doesn’t matter. An atheist world is preferred. No one has any authority over you. Look around. Isn’t that true for some?
On another forum: “I never want to feel guilty or ashamed or sinful ever again.” That statement is fiction from one who has cut himself off from the source of life. No one can run from God. No one can reject God and live. It is my duty to warn all reading. After you die, the judgment.
Here, science is separated from God. It can’t be. Communion and Stewardship tells every Catholic that. Evolution, as defined here, is a concept suitable for atheists. It is about human biological robots. About human bodies that die and rot. No God. No judgment. So it is promoting atheism - nothing more. How living things function cannot be explained by the Royal Society. How behaviors appear in living things to interact with other living things cannot be explained. But that doesn’t matter. An atheist world is preferred. No one has any authority over you. Look around. Isn’t that true for some?
On another forum: “I never want to feel guilty or ashamed or sinful ever again.” That statement is fiction from one who has cut himself off from the source of life. No one can run from God. No one can reject God and live. It is my duty to warn all reading. After you die, the judgment.
B
buffalo
Guest
Things that begin to exist have a cause.
A
Allyson
Guest
If I thought that you had any idea of what evolution is, I might be convinced by you that I should become an atheist just by your dismissive attitude. As it is, your comment is way off the mark. It reveals your pet view of who is a real Catholic and who is not. It is your insistence on believing that doing theology and having a scientific understanding of the material world are by their natures at odds. This is not the case.
No one here is discussing not wanting to feel sinful, etc. You do way too much pearl clutching. That is not relevant to understanding where HG (a 1950 view) fits with the modern understanding of human evolution (seen-in’ 2020 :crazy_face
, which has advanced greatly in both being proved true as to the theory and breaking boundaries in expanding our understanding these last 70 years. One is not exclusive to the other. Science is only interesting when you get results you do not expect 
The spiritual truths that the Church takes from Genesis relate to Catholic soteriology, i.e. salvation through Christ. It is the salvation history aspect that is more important than the literal meaning as an origin myth (the genre of Genesis).Catholics are required to believe that an Adam and Ever were real and had immortal/rational souls given to them by God and that there was a fall and Original Sin. I am not denying those things. What is the case is that, while I think Pius was picturing that they were literally the only two bodily parents, it is not biologically practical to be that literal. He also carefully worded it so that there is wiggle room. Think of the genetic diseases that are common in populations that are to closely consanguineous. I think it is naive thinking to posit that a human population could have started and flourished from just one couple. Previously in this thread, it was discussed how it is possible for any pair of people in the past to be ancestral to all people today, even from a population of just 10,000. All 10,000 are the direct ancestors of everyone today.
Last edited:
A
Allyson
Guest
I still need to synthesize for myself, but I am rejecting neither the science nor the theology. That is my starting point - treating both as having a truth value. I am not sure yet that I am satisfied that I have a good answer, but I know what I do not think are good answers.
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
I know that. You know that. However, stoplooklisten appeared not to know the Kalaam argument.
G
gama232
Guest
Why be vague? Just say the Church is wrong and be done with it. Don’t hide behind wrong thinking either. I have seen the old “it was 1950 and they/he didn’t know” before. Let’s move on to 2007 and Pope Benedict:
In the book, Benedict reflected on a 1996 comment of his predecessor, John Paul II, who said that Charles Darwin’s theories on evolution were sound, as long as they took into account that creation was the work of God, and that Darwin’s theory of evolution was “more than a hypothesis.”
“The pope (John Paul) had his reasons for saying this,” Benedict said. “But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”
Benedict added that the immense time span that evolution covers made it impossible to conduct experiments in a controlled environment to finally verify or disprove the theory.
“We cannot haul 10,000 generations into the laboratory,” he said.
In the book, Benedict reflected on a 1996 comment of his predecessor, John Paul II, who said that Charles Darwin’s theories on evolution were sound, as long as they took into account that creation was the work of God, and that Darwin’s theory of evolution was “more than a hypothesis.”
“The pope (John Paul) had his reasons for saying this,” Benedict said. “But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”
Benedict added that the immense time span that evolution covers made it impossible to conduct experiments in a controlled environment to finally verify or disprove the theory.
“We cannot haul 10,000 generations into the laboratory,” he said.
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
The Church is not wrong. Your interpretation of what the Church says is wrong.
Benedict was wrong. Biologists have run experiments with tens of thousands of generations in the lab.
- Status