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.
Allyson said:
Does the platform actually send messages about this? lol. Just curious, because I am used to the old platform, but was not active for a very long time. I only reactivated a month ago.
Click to expand...
You get a pop up if you respond to the same person many times on a thread.
 
You get a warning saying that you’ve replied to the same person three times and should include others in the conversation. I wasn’t here in the old forum so I have no idea how it behaved. I kind of like that it try’s to make you not concentrate on just a two way conversation.
 
Last edited:
o_mlly said:
If you will not accept the proposed definition of “intelligent” then you may by substitution use its referent.
Click to expand...
DNA is not intelligent. It is a molecule. It is a complex molecule, but it is not intelligent by any reasonable definition.

The ID side claims that intelligence is required to design something as complex as DNA, but that is only their claim. They do not claim that DNA itself is intelligent, as you appear to be doing.

Intelligence is required to design a sculpture, such as the Statue of Liberty. That does not mean that the Statue of Liberty is itself intelligent. Same here; DNA is no more intelligent than the Statue of Liberty.
o_mlly said:
So, where is your evidence of an observable repeatable effect possessing digital-organized-information emanating from a cause which did not possess digital-organized-information.
Click to expand...
See Ekland et al, (1995) Structurally complex and highly active RNA ligases derived from random RNA sequences.
 
Interesting. lol. It has not happened to me yet, but I have mostly only been on this thread that I started, so that maybe why?

It has been a while, but I do not recall anything similar on the old forum.
 
rossum said:
DNA is not intelligent. It is a molecule. It is a complex molecule, but it is not intelligent by any reasonable definition.
Click to expand...
You continue to avoid the issue. Does DNA/RNA contain digital-organized-information? Yes.
DNA Is a Structure That Encodes Biological Information | Learn Science at Scitable

How is the DNA strand organized …
DNA Is a Structure That Encodes Biological Information …
… the specific sequence of A, T, C, and G nucleotides within an organism’s DNA is unique to that individual …
Click to expand...
rossum said:
See Ekland et al, (1995) Structurally complex and highly active RNA ligases derived from random RNA sequences.
Click to expand...
The link requires login. Please quote what you believe to be relevant to the question at hand.
 
buffalo said:
I have shown with science links the issues with macro-evolution and how ID is now the better explanation.
Click to expand...
Showing me doesn’t mean much. What percent of evolutionary biologists have been persuaded by the evidence?

And please, none of the They have an atheistic agenda or conspiracies to keep alternative views out of evolution or how they won’t get funding. Those are false and not how science or scientists work. Have they persuaded 50%? 10%. 1% ? Maybe 1 or 2 non evolutionary biologists? For all the times you’ve claimed that the opinions are changing, I’ve seen zero evidence outside of the small number of ID theorists of any sweeping changes to our understanding of evolutionary theory.
 
rossum said:
Evolution includes natural selection and natural selection is not a random process.
Click to expand...
And now, as I have shown in the Royal Society meetings they are discussing the evidence that NS is directed by intelligence. When confronted to dig deeper into this they broke for tea. It was hilarious. Can’t go there. 😀
 
What points here are in disagreement?
66) The world had a begining in time. (De fide.)
  1. God alone created the World. (De fide.)
  2. No Creature can, as Principal Cause (causa principalis) that is, from its own power, create something out of nothing. (Sent. communis.)
  3. God keeps all created things in existence. (De fide.)
  4. God co-operates immediately in every act of His creatures. (Sent. communis.)
  5. God through His providence, protects and guides all that He has created. (De fide.)
  6. The first man was created by God. (De fide.)
  7. The whole human race stems from one single human pair. (Sent. certa.)
  8. Man consists of two essential parts–a material body and a spiritual soul. (De fide.)
  9. The rational soul is per se the essential form of the body. (De fide.)
  10. Every human being possesses an individual soul. (De fide.)
  11. Every individual soul was immediately created out of nothing by God. (Sent. Certa.)
  12. A creature has the capacity to receive supernatural gifts. (Sent. communis.)
  13. The Supernatural presupposes Nature. (Sent communis.)
  14. God has conferred on man a supernatural Destiny. (De fide.)
  15. Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De fide.)
  16. The donum rectitudinis or integritatis in the narrower sense, i.e., the freedom from irregular desire. (Sent. fidei proxima.)
83)The donum immortalitatis, i.e.,bodily immortality. (De fide.)
  1. The donum impassibilitatis, i.e., the freedom from suffering. (Sent. communis.)
  2. The donum scientiae, i.e., a knowledge of natural and supernatural truths infused by God. (Sent. communis.)
 
Pattylt said:
Showing me doesn’t mean much. What percent of evolutionary biologists have been persuaded by the evidence?

And please, none of the They have an atheistic agenda or conspiracies to keep alternative views out of evolution or how they won’t get funding. Those are false and not how science or scientists work. Have they persuaded 50%? 10%. 1% ? Maybe 1 or 2 non evolutionary biologists? For all the times you’ve claimed that the opinions are changing, I’ve seen zero evidence outside of the small number of ID theorists of any sweeping changes to our understanding of evolutionary theory.
Click to expand...
The top one’s are persuaded enough to understand the modern synthesis has lost its explanatory power. That is why they are trying for the EES. It was in this context the evidence being discussed about natural selection having intelligent agency they broke for tea. In another snippet Jablonka said (paraphrasing) we have to continue the EES research, but we have to keep God out of it.

I will not spend time trying to convince you of the power academia has over one’s funding and career. Search for the stories from those who have dared break from the paradigm. This is a huge problem in science.
 
Thank you buffalo. When the focus is science only then all of the above can be missed. Here, it is very clear that the interpretation of the evidence can ignore what a number of Popes have written about evolution and our first parents. I know what I need to know about minimum population sizes and bottlenecks yet God’s only Son is born to live among us, and heals people and raises the dead.
 
Apparently, freedom of inquiry cannot extend to certain subjects. But it is men who have put blinders on. In the past, God was praised, now, keep God out of it. I was reading about a miracle where experts were brought in. The person who initiated the miracle, completed by God, knew exactly what happened. Those experts concluded that what actually happened was impossible for one man.
 
Last edited:
gama232 said:
I’m claiming Humani Generis should be read as written. The same for the Catechism. And Pope John Paul II made it very clear in his address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1996 that he was talking about theories - plural - of evolution, not just one.
Click to expand...
I think Pope Pius certainly believed that all humans derived from a single pair, without any genetic admixture of the kind suggested above to try to reconcile current scientific thinking with Genesis.

I also think he was wrong, and in the seventy years since Humani Generis, I think ‘the Church’, at least as an authority on things, has shifted its position. The section of the Catechism on the origin of man, forty years later, is hedged about with phraseology such as “interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way” and “the biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language”.

Pope John Paul II certainly mentioned “theories” of evolution in his address. I don’t know what he meant by that, but he made a clear distinction between the acceptable and the unacceptable. In his Easter Vigil Sermon of 2011, Pope Benedict said that man is not a random consequence of cosmological process. I agree with him. I think I am an inevitable consequence of cosmological process, which “front-loading” as buffalo describes it, is God-mandated and God-maintained. However this is a philosophical view of the nature of cosmology, and in no way:
gama232 said:
exposes science as being the inadequate, incomplete, and therefore, wrong explanation.
Click to expand...
 
What points here are in disagreement?

I have deleted some that I think we agree on.
  1. No Creature can, as Principal Cause (causa principalis) that is, from its own power, create something out of nothing. (Sent. communis.)
I have no idea on this, but not really relevant to this discussion

72) The first man was created by God. (De fide.)

73) The whole human race stems from one single human pair. (Sent. certa.)

74) Man consists of two essential parts–a material body and a spiritual soul. (De fide.)

75) The rational soul is per se the essential form of the body. (De fide.)

76) Every human being possesses an individual soul. (De fide.)

77) Every individual soul was immediately created out of nothing by God. (Sent. Certa.)

I agree completely With these. Do you? I think our understandings of them differ.

79) The Supernatural presupposes Nature. (Sent communis.)

80) God has conferred on man a supernatural Destiny. (De fide.)

I certainly believe in these, but I doubt that you do.

81) Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De fide.)

82) The donum rectitudinis or integritatis in the narrower sense, i.e., the freedom from irregular desire. (Sent. fidei proxima.)

83)The donum immortalitatis, i.e.,bodily immortality. (De fide.)

84) The donum impassibilitatis, i.e., the freedom from suffering. (Sent. communis.)

85) The donum scientiae, i.e., a knowledge of natural and supernatural truths infused by God. (Sent. communis.)

These seem right, though they have to be understood in the context of 1 Cor 15’s remarks about the incorruptible psychic body.

I guess I agree with all of them, except maybe one that is not very relevant as far as I know.
 
o_mlly said:
You continue to avoid the issue. Does DNA/RNA contain digital-organized-information? Yes.
Click to expand...
No. DNA is a chemical, not a digital representation. Digital representations are in bits, not chemicals.

The information chemically encoded in DNA can be represented digitally, but that does not make DNA itself digital.

Evolutionary processes can both increase and decrease the amount of information present in DNA.

One problem I have encountered before in similar discussions is the way you are measuring information. I use Shannon information or Kolmogorov information. If you are using a different measure of information then please specify what measure you are using.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top