G
gama232
Guest
Ho hum… Nothing new there. It doesn’t matter with bacteria or fruit flies. And yes, no first parents, according to some here. They are wrong.
Last edited:
Reconciling Humani Generis with the human genetic data showing that there never were just two first parents
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
Once again, over 10 terabytes of collected genetic data yields this. Note the long stretches coming from 1 point and then the rapid spreading at certa(name removed by moderator)oints.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Figure 3. An unrooted neighbor-joining phylogenetic tree of the Y chromosomes from the Simons Genome Diversity Project. Unlike 1000 Genomes, which sampled heavily from specific populations, SGDP attempted to sample from a much wider range of peoples. The result is a tree that better represents total worldwide Y chromosome diversity. Noah and/or Shem, Ham, and Japheth would be located near the center of the starburst. The scale bar represents approximately 700 mutations.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Figure 3. An unrooted neighbor-joining phylogenetic tree of the Y chromosomes from the Simons Genome Diversity Project. Unlike 1000 Genomes, which sampled heavily from specific populations, SGDP attempted to sample from a much wider range of peoples. The result is a tree that better represents total worldwide Y chromosome diversity. Noah and/or Shem, Ham, and Japheth would be located near the center of the starburst. The scale bar represents approximately 700 mutations.
Last edited:
D
Dovekin
Guest
Nice. All those millions of men arranged like a flower.
What do you want us to take from this?
B
buffalo
Guest
Dr. Robert Carter - Meet Your Ancestors: Adam & Eve https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BV-bUXqALE
A
Allyson
Guest
I have a great deal of love and respect for Pope Benedict XVI. When I was in grad school, we all fan-girled/boyed over him before he was Pope. I also have his 1995 book “In the Beginning…’: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall.”
However, he is mistaken about how science works. There was an evolutionary hypothesis proposed by Darwin. Once that hypothesis was tested and found to have explanatory value, it was given the status of theory and has undergone some modification - the Modern Synthesis. That is how science works. You push the limits and develop new ideas. The theory of evolution has not lost explanatory value. Neither has Newtonian mechanics, which replaced the Aristotelian mechanics, even though we now understand that Newton’s theories have their limits, and we now have quantum mechanics to explain what happens that cannot be explained by Classical mechanics.
It is a common misconception that any limitation in our ability to confirm the predictions of evolution by not having vast expanses in time to do so some how renders evolution unverifiable. That is flat out wrong.
I have not been vague. I have been very specific.
A
Allyson
Guest
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Yes, it was, at least in part. I repost for your consideration:
That was your question, twice, I think, and that’s what I responded to. Of Pius’s knowledge of metaphysical first principles I cannot judge.
That’s a very good question, and has a philosophical as well as a mathematical answer. A lot depends on the definition of “random” and how constrained that definition is allowed. For the time being, I’ll just say that spontaneous mutations have been, and still are regularly monitored in various organisms, and no pattern has been observed. That means that we cannot predict when or where a spontaneous mutation will occur, which means, for some definition of the word, that they are, as far as we know, random.
Without knowing what advice he received we cannot be sure, but I suspect the opposite. I don’t think he would have countenanced anything resembling “hominid bodies, indistinguishable by any physical criteria, two of which were human because their souls were rational, distinguishable only by metaphysical properties.” Nor would he have accepted the argument about the ancestors of Mitochondrial Adam and Eve.
This is not true on several levels. For a start, I don’t think Evolution has been defined “here”, and insofar as its definition may be inferred from the discussion, it certainly does not appear to be a concept suitable for atheists. I may be wrong, but you appear to be quite obstinately refusing to accept that there are evolutionary models that are wholly compatible with the immediate mediation of God, which were acceptable to Pope John-Paul and to ‘Communion and Stewardship.’ Am I right?
This is embarking on a rant which may express profound sentiments, but lacks both coherence and authority. The fact that humans die and rot was true before any theory of evolution was promulgated, and would continue to be true even if it were completely abandoned.
G
gama232
Guest
Two first parents? Yes or no?
O
o_mlly
Guest
Our present inability to predict effects does not render all such effects to be random. All science depends on presuming the opposite. Why give evolution science a pass?
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Not sure what you mean by that: it sounds a bit garbled. But if you mean that hypotheses are often considered supported when an attempt to verify the opposite fails, then the randomness of genetic mutation fits the criteria. Attempts to find pattern and predictability having failed, the hypothesis of randomness is supported. The moment someone says: “the next mutation on this fruitfly will occur there”, and it does, the randomness of mutation will begin to lose credibility. Evolution science is no different from any other in this respect.
A
Allyson
Guest
@gama232 This response from @Hugh_Farey reminds me that I should note that, to my mind, the theory of evolution - like all scientific theories - is a-religious in nature: NOT anti-religious, which is what I think you mean by “concept suitable for atheists.” I do not agree with Dawkins that evolution will convince a person that there is no God. I think that a person brings with them presuppositions about the meaning of evolution, which informs their view of it. My dad was one of 5 boys - 1 priest and 4 scientists. I grew up with a positive view of science and was not taught to fear it/be unduly skeptical. If you are not brought up the way I was, it might seem like there is an inherent opposition between the two.gama232:
This is not true on several levels. For a start, I don’t think Evolution has been defined “here”, and insofar as its definition may be inferred from the discussion, it certainly does not appear to be a concept suitable for atheists. I may be wrong, but you appear to be quite obstinately refusing to accept that there are evolutionary models that are wholly compatible with the immediate mediation of God, which were acceptable to Pope John-Paul and to ‘Communion and Stewardship.’ Am I right?
Two first parents with respect to the creation of the soul by God. Other genetic contributors are unavoidable biologically speaking.
Last edited:
G
gama232
Guest
“unavoidable biologically speaking”? I’ll take that as no.
Science was my favorite subject. At University, I thought I wanted to be a chemist. Science, today, has become corrupted by personal agendas and money-making opportunists. Unavoidable? Perhaps. Wrong? Definitely. I watch science via highly technical sites and watch the latest research. Things are getting done but at a far slower pace than what is required. However, once a particular country reaches the brink, everything that needs to get done gets done. There are many historical examples.
Anyway, Dawkins and others, use evolution to satisfy their atheism. Also, people like Ken Miller have stopped thinking clearly about God and hold strange ideas as true:
“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.”
(Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; emphasis in original.)
Science was my favorite subject. At University, I thought I wanted to be a chemist. Science, today, has become corrupted by personal agendas and money-making opportunists. Unavoidable? Perhaps. Wrong? Definitely. I watch science via highly technical sites and watch the latest research. Things are getting done but at a far slower pace than what is required. However, once a particular country reaches the brink, everything that needs to get done gets done. There are many historical examples.
Anyway, Dawkins and others, use evolution to satisfy their atheism. Also, people like Ken Miller have stopped thinking clearly about God and hold strange ideas as true:
“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.”
(Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; emphasis in original.)
Last edited:
A
Allyson
Guest
An example would be good, because I am not clear one what you are saying here. Why didn’t you become a chemist?
Well, no to what you think, but not with respect to what is required in HG.
When speaking in purely scientific terms, yes, that is how evolution is. Miller does not believe that in theological terms. You do need to keep the demarcation between science and theology.
When I answered:
The first sentence was the theological answer. The second question was the biological answer. In between the two is a pesky mystery.
A
Allyson
Guest
Here is a link to a PDF version not behind a paywall in case you are interested. The flower chart was arranged by Robert Carter, who was not one of the authors of the original study.
buffalo:
Nice. All those millions of men arranged like a flower.
What do you want us to take from this?
G
gama232
Guest
You want to stay vague, fine. . . . The goal is crystal clear: Science comes first and God is totally optional. Some people - not you - obviously think that if the religious types and the atheists could be on the same page that the religious types will not see the end result coming. God becomes a word and we can stay in our Church buildings. In fact, we are a threat because science is god now - or so they desire. Have you read Sam Harris? He’s a scientist who views Christians as a threat. Article reference on request.
So, when God is cast aside, some humans only think self-interest is left. Evolution works, for them, on two levels: one as a pseudo-scientific idea that they believe and as a belief system with which they will run society.
So, when God is cast aside, some humans only think self-interest is left. Evolution works, for them, on two levels: one as a pseudo-scientific idea that they believe and as a belief system with which they will run society.
Last edited:
A
Allyson
Guest
I can only be as precise as the disciplines I am discussing. Theology is a particularly vague space to work in (does anyone really understand the Trinity?
), which is probably why I like unpacking it; science presents all conclusions in contingent language.Not either/or; I prefer both/and.
I have his book The Moral Landscape on deck to read at some point. I think he is more concerned with Islam as as an existential threat than with Christianity, but I am sure he counts all religion as a threat to some degree, because there are religious people who do want to impose their ideas on others. Not me or you I am sure, but they do exist.
It is not outside of the philosophic disciplines to speak of the animal nature in man, and so evolutionary psychology does have merit, even for a Catholic. However, I do not think all evolutionary psychologist think that man is primarily self-interested or selfishly altruistic (in the Randian sense). What you describe is certainly not how a secular humanist thinks.
B
buffalo
Guest
Correct. He is using the raw data to do his study.
A
Allyson
Guest
Meanwhile, dismissing the timeline data because he has an agenda - Young Earth Creationism…
D
Dovekin
Guest
Nice. All those millions of men arranged like a flower.
What do you want us to take from this?
If I may ask again. Last time I only got a remark that it somehow the basis for streaming video over the internet.
What do you want us to take from this?
If I may ask again. Last time I only got a remark that it somehow the basis for streaming video over the internet.
A
Allyson
Guest
I need the laugh reaction. 
- Status