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.
I agree. Characterizing the data as ‘fringe’ does not invalidate observed results. Cells are small and certain functions, like accurate protein folding, are poorly understood. As in, why this particular shape? An electromagnetic sensing and feedback mechanism makes sense. However, those who think that this is in any way natural need to show how such a mechanism can come into existence de novo.
 
buffalo said:
Here we go again. Let’s argue the data.
Click to expand...
I did. You ignored that part of the comment.
Allyson said:
Even so, I am willing to entertain the idea. However, it is still a fully natural process. If it turns out to be the case that cells direct at least some mutations, then there will be a natural explanation because it is being done by a purely natural agent. You still do not get an Intelligent Designer confirmed by science. At the end of the day, what you find confidence in theologically remains theology and personal interpretation.
Click to expand...
gama232 said:
I agree. Characterizing the data as ‘fringe’ does not invalidate observed results. Cells are small and certain functions, like accurate protein folding, are poorly understood. As in, why this particular shape? An electromagnetic sensing and feedback mechanism makes sense. However, those who think that this is in any way natural need to show how such a mechanism can come into existence de novo.
Click to expand...
My quoted response above. I do not disagree with you that just because something is fringe that the results are de facto invalidated. However, you do have to use that noggin’, a grain of salt, and a sqeeze of lime. 🥃 🍋 (Lemon was the closest)
 
Strange. It seems that some look for certain things that are outside of mainstream Catholic teaching as well. That noggin’ can lead one to error without the guidance of clear Church teaching. Novelty is bad when it’s just a clever way to try to change the unchangeable.
 
Last edited:
gama232 said:
Strange. It seems that some look for certain things that are outside of mainstream Catholic teaching as well. That noggin’ can lead one to error without the guidance of clear Church teaching. Novelty is bad when it’s just a clever way to try to change the unchangeable.
Click to expand...
Funny, this most recent exchange was about a scientific paper regarding cell-directed mutation - not a theological doctrine of the Catholic Church. She (the author) was often criticized to engaging in psuedo-science (like homeopathy). So, yes…a huge grain of salt is warranted.

The guidance of Church teaching does not even apply to identifying whether she engaged in good science or bad.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
40.png
Freddy:
Still waiting, Buff
Click to expand...
Still waiting on you to link the paper so we can discuss.
Click to expand...
David L Abel https://www.researchgate.net/public...vs_Self-Ordering_events_in_life-origin_models

‘Given the short period of time between earth’s cooling (4 - 3.9 ga) and the 3.8-billion-year age of life…’


“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.” My emphasis.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
40.png
Dovekin:
t is also the problem with your position. It may be true that organized information can only come from an intelligent source , but we do not know if it is factual.
Click to expand...
Since science is provisional it is not ruled out. Since science is provisional the demise of evolution is not ruled out. We don’t know if macro-evolution is factual.
Click to expand...
Even one of your poster boys accepts it.

‘So if macroevolution includes evolution at the genera, family, or order level, Behe concludes that what some consider “macroevolution” might be possible.’ “Macroevolution” and Its Discontents | Evolution News
 
Allyson said:
You do seem to pull a lot of sources from the fringe.
Click to expand...
You better believe it. His chum Abel (he who holds that the planet is billions of years old - which is a problem yet to be addressed by Buff) is head of the Department of ProtoBioCybernetics and ProtoBioSemiotics, Origin of Life Science Foundation, Inc.

Don’t know about you, but I’m impressed!

If you’re interested, you can paste the address of this centre of excellence into Google maps and check out the imposing facility: 113-120 Hedgewood Drive, Greenbelt, MD 20770, USA.

It’s a single storey weatherboard house on a suburban street with a small hand written sign on the garage wall saying ‘Origin of Life’. I wonder which bedroom the department of ProtoBioCybernetics and ProtoBioSemiotics is in.

You just gotta larf…
 
Last edited:
Freddy said:
You just gotta larf…
Click to expand...
Lol. I am assuming that I am not the first to suggest that these sources are suspect. It is no wonder I knew nothing about all the fantastic evidence for design since Kitzmiller v. Dover. It is because all the sources would be roasted just as harshly by Judge Jones as Behe was. I mean…I will give all sources a fair hearing, but my salt and lime will be heavy on the glass rim. lol
🥃 🍋 🧂
 
buffalo said:
And the main points still stand.
Click to expand...
So you’re saying that what these two guys have published is wrong? You do realise that ‘the main points’ are dependent on the time scales that they quoted. Everything they have published would make zero sense unless the age of the earth was billions of years old and man’s lineage went back millions of years.

You’ve got a guy self publishing books in his bedroom - ah, sorry, in the Department of ProtoBioCybernetics and ProtoBioSemiotics, Origin of Life Science Foundation, Inc. (stop giggling at the back if you would) who you have held to be an expert in his field (he apparently qualified as a vet) and whose book you seem to think backs your viewpoint but who holds views that are directly counter to your beliefs.

But how were you to know? You don’t investigate what these people write. You simply cut ‘n’ paste thinking it supports your views when they actually dismantle them. You don’t even investigate the bona fides of the people who hold them.

Keep 'em coming, Buff…
 
buffalo said:
Can you dig out the specific reference to Adam and Eve in that book?

Y Adam is most likely Noah (or his sons)
MtDNA Eve is the mother of all living.
Click to expand...
As I noted before, linking mtDNA and Y-Chromosomal DNA LCA to people in the Bible is without purpose. They bear no relation. Those terms were adapted from what is the common mythology of the West. That said, there is a significant discussion in the book about using those portions of the Genome to understand human history. Chapters 1 and 10.

Re: The article from Nature on the date of the oldest Y-Chromosome, see: Study Says Oldest Known Human Y-Chromosome Branch Dates to 338,000 Years Ago | Genetics | Sci-News.com

Reich uses the 380,000 years ago date in his book.
Allyson said:
The conclusion of the estimated smallest bottleneck in the human population is extrapolated from facts.
Click to expand...
Fig. 5 on p. 16 (how to date age differences between genes) Source: S. Mallick et. al. “The Simons Genome Diversity Project: 300 genomes from 142 Diverse Populations,” Nature 538 (2016) 201-6.

Li & Durban “Inferring Human Population History from Individual Whole-Genome Sequences” Nature 475 (2011): 493-96.

Those are just a couple of the many sources Reich used for the book. He breaks down the current data as of 2017/18 by region, so you get a thorough overview of what was happening in Europe, India, The Americas, East Asia, and Africa.

As I noted before, Swamidass praised the book linked in my OP in the second video that you linked.
 
Last edited:
Average amounts for research grants are $1000-50000. This will include paying for any research assistants, supplies and other incurred costs. You make it sound like these guys get millions of dollars and keep it all for themselves. Often the research takes years. I think you need to drop this excuse for why there is such a large consensus on evolution…it ain’t the money!
 
Pattylt said:
Average is around $44000/yr…yep, they’re really doing it for the big bucks! 😂😂😂
Click to expand...
Kind of like how people think if you are a lawyer, you make bank. LOL. I still can’t pay off the students loans from my MA work… 😂 😂 😂 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top