Reconstructed discussion whether belief in literal Adam & Eve is warranted

[hecd2]

continuation

[Note that other papers agree that substantial variation in DRB1 exon 2 postdates human-chimp divergence (particulatly with regard to rare or private alleles), but that the major haplotypes of exon 2 predate the divergence, concluding that the data is inconsistent with a bottleneck in human ancestry of two individuals. For example Tomas Bergstrom and his team at Uppsala have worked extensively in his field. For example:
Bergstrom et al, Recent Origin of DRB1 alleles and implications for human evolution,* Nature Genetics* 18, 237 (1998), (The human DRB1 alleles can be divided into groups (allelic lineages); most of these lineages have diverged from each other before the separation of Homo and Pan. Alleles within such a lineage, however, appear to be, on average, 250,000 years old, implying that the vast majority (greater than 90%) of the more than 135 contemporary human DRB1 alleles have been generated after the separation of Homo and Pan. The coalescence time of alleles within allelic lineages indicates that the effective population size (Ne) for early hominids (over the last 1 Myr) was approximately 10,000 individuals, similar to estimates based on other nuclear loci and mitochondrial DNA.)
Bergstrom et al, Phylogenetic history of hominoid DRB1 loci and alleles inferred from intron sequences, Immunological reviews 167:351-365 ( …the allelic lineages and alleles of the DRB1 locus were studied based on intron 1 and intron 2 sequences from humans, chimpanzee, bonobo and gorilla. The phylogenetic trees for these sequences indicate that most of the DRB1 allelic lineages predate the separation of the hominoid species studied, consistent with previous analysis of the coding sequences of these lineages.)
van Salome, Gyllensten and Bergstrom, Full length sequence analysis of the HLA-DRB1 locus suggests a recent origin of alleles, Immunogenetics 59, 261 - 267 (2007) (An ancestral “proto HLA-DRB1*03 lineage” appeared to have diverged in the last 5 million years into the human-specific lineages *08, *11, *13, and *14. With exception to exon 2, both the coding- and the noncoding diversity suggests a recent origin (<1 million years ago) for most of the alleles at the HLA-DRB1 locus. Sites encoding for amino acids involved in antigen binding appear to have a more ancient origin.)]

[Also we need to be clear what Shiina et al mean by “narrow bottleneck” when they say “This result finally puts the MHC in line with the bulk of population and evolutionary genetics data, which firmly conclude that a narrow bottleneck has occurred at the origin of our species”. Fortunately they cite two papers in support if this “narrow bottleneck”:
Cann et al, Mitochondrial DNA and Human Evolution, Nature*,* 325 (1987), 31-36 which makes no claims about bottlenecks at all other than to say they might be estimated at some future date
and
Hammer, ’ A recent common ancestry for human Y-chromosomes’, *Nature *378, 376 - 378 which states that their results are compatible with autosomal and mtDNA studies which conclude an effective population size of 10,000 over the last million years citing Takahata, ‘Allelic genealogy and human evolution’, Mol Biol Evol 10, 2 - 22 which supports the figure of 10,000 and states: “The HLA polymorphism thus provides convincing evidence for the absence of severe bottlenecks in almost the entire history of hominoids.”. So when Shiina et al talk about narrow bottlenecks they do not mean two or a few individuals.

All of this is compatible with the consensus findings of studies in multiple loci in the human genome - a very long term mean effective population of 100,000 in human ancestry over 30 million years (comparable with other primates); a mean effective population size of 10,000 in the last million years; and the possibility of one or a few bottlenecks as small as ~1000 individuals lasting for no more than 100 generations. The data is *not *compatible with a severe bottleneck of two or a few individuals in the ancestry of humans.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

Further, another more recent citation estimates an effective population size of 3100.

“Abstract: Effective population size (N(e)) determines the amount of genetic variation, genetic drift, and linkage disequilibrium (LD) in populations. Here, we present the first genome-wide estimates of human effective population size from LD data. … Phase I of the HapMap project produced between 18 and 22 million SNP pairs in samples from four populations: Yoruba from Ibadan (YRI), Nigeria; Japanese from Tokyo (JPT); Han Chinese from Beijing (HCB); and residents from Utah with ancestry from northern and western Europe (CEU). For CEU, JPT, and HCB, the estimate of effective population size, adjusted for SNP ascertainment bias, was approximately 3100, whereas the estimate for the YRI was approximately 7500, consistent with the out-of-Africa theory of ancestral human population expansion and concurrent bottlenecks. We show that the decay in LD over distance between SNPs is consistent with recent population growth. The estimates of N(e) are lower than previously published estimates based on heterozygosity, possibly because they represent one or more bottlenecks in human population size that occurred approximately 10,000 to 200,000 years ago.” Tenesa et al, Recent Human Effective Population Size Estimated from Linkage Disequilibrium. Genome Res. 17: 520-526.

My contacts tell me that the value of 3100 corresponds to Ayala’s estimate of 100,000.

I am sorry, but they are wrong again, and they are wrong for two cogent reasons:

1. Ayala’s estimate represented a mean effective population size over 30 million years (since the coalescence of several DRB1 alleles is older than that), whereas LD estimates population size over a much shorter time scale and is sensitive to recent bottlenecks in population - in fact Tenesa et al explicitly use SNPs located at such a distance apart on the genome that result in estimates of population size between 10,000 and 200,000 years ago.
2. More importantly, the figure of 3100 refers to the effective population size of non-African populations (JPT, CEU, and HCB) (reflecting a smaller founding population of migrations out of Africa) whereas the correct figure for African (YRI) populations is 7500.

So the figure that you should compare with Ayala’s is 7500 not 3100, but, in any case the two estimates cover entirely different time periods - 30 million years and 200,000 years. 7,500 is not that different from the commonly accepted figure of 10,000 (which is derived from heterozygoity at multiple loci) as an effective population size over the last million years - but as Tenesa et al point out in explaining the difference between the estimates of 10,000 and 7,500: “We propose that the most likely explanation is that different studies implicitly or explicitly have estimated Ne at a different point in time and that the estimates can be reconciled by taking the time element into account.” Tenesa et al also discuss bottlenecks, both in the context of the founding populations outside Africa and, more relevantly in the population ancestral to all humans. In the latter case they cite Liu et al, A geographically explicit model of human settlement history, Am J Hum Genet 79: 230–237; which model suggests an effective population bottleneck of 1000 at the foundation of the modern human population.

to be continued

 

[hecd2]

continuation
Dr. Bonnette:

“Effective” population size is sensitive to fluctuations in the actual population size over time, and is most sensitive to the lower values. With the value of about 3100, it is possible that the population went through a bottleneck of just two individuals about ten thousand generations ago (about 300,000 years for humans), and expanded quickly (within ten generations) to a value of 10,000. This number (bottleneck of two) is tenable without having to invoke miracles or divine activity.

I don’t know whether this is you or your contact talking, but in any case it is wrong. In the first instance the value of 3100 is incorrect, and secondly the assertion that the molecular data is consistent with a bottleneck of two is just that - an assertion completely unsupported by the evidence - in fact denied by it because the DRB1 data on its own logically precludes such an extreme bottleneck and that is before we consider the size of a real population capable of sustaining the heterozygosity, microsatellite and LD data that we see. A bottleneck of two would result in far more homozygosity than we see as neutral alleles drift to extinction or fixation rapidly in a tiny population. Furthermore, there isn’t the slightest shred of evidence to support the notion that the human population could or did expand at more than 100% per generation over ten generations in palaeolithic times. To prove me wrong, all you have to do is to cite a reference to a paper which sets out the reasoning for considering a bottleneck of two as a possibility.

Whatever the exact case, it appears that there is no professional unanimity supporting the inferences you draw from the Human Genome Project,

That is incorrect, as I have shown. There is much closer agreement than your contacts suggest; in fact there is remarkable consistency across multiple methods of estimating palaeo-demography, and there is unanimity that the population ancestral to humans never passed through a bottleneck of two individuals - certainly, neither of the papers that your contact cites suggest any such thing.

and that, for that reason, sound theology and philosophy offer more reliable guidance on the great questions pertaining to cosmic and human origins and human nature.

As you would expect, I reject “sound theology” (a contradiction in terms as it seems to me) and philosophy as being efficacious means to discover truths about the natural world, which includes the ancestry of the human animal.

Now it appears that the case for Adam and Eve may be more robust from the perspective of natural science than it appeared at the time of my writing.

No, I am afraid that you have been misled.

Thus, theological and philosophical reasoning supports, and even natural scientific evidence appears to be consistent with, “belief in a literal Adam & Eve.”

The natural evidence is *not *consistent with belief in a literal Adam and Eve. You will counter that you are not a biologist and that you are not in a position to argue the technical points that I have raised. The solution to that is for your expert contacts to come here and to discuss the matter with me; or, more simply, for them or for you to find a single reputable citation based in molecular biology, where a population bottleneck of two in the human ancestry is considered to be a serious possibility.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

…your affirmation that “the principle of non-contradiction is not valid in the subatomic order” is itself a statement about the real conditions of the subatomic order, just as are your statements about photons being both particles and waves.

If “the principle of non-contradiction is not valid in the subatomic order,” is itself a statement about the real conditions of the subatomic order, then it can violate the principle of non-contradiction just as easily as does wave-particle duality allegedly violate it. In that case, saying that “the principle of non-contradiction is not valid in the subatomic order” can just as well mean that “the principle of non-contradiction is valid in the subatomic order.” So, what exactly did you say?

I said that the principle of non-contradiction does not apply to certain phenomena in the quantum world. Now I acknowledge that that leads to difficulties of the kind that you describe as well as other conundra. If I was able to resolve these things without patent violations of classical logic then a) the contradictions would not exist and b) I would be famous. The fact is that the quantum world does not merely contain paradoxes and difficulties - it is profoundly different from the macro-world so that principles that appear intuitive (immediately evident in your terminology) do not apply. Because one cannot negotiate an interpretation of what we observe using classical logic and primary metaphysical principles, observations are interpreted in many incompatible ways by different people, and not a single one of those interpretations is self-consistent according to classical logic (although quantum mechanics is computationally internally consistent). As Feynman famously said “if you think you understand quantum mechanics, then you don’t”. Someone else, fed up with failed attempts to interpret QM in classical terms created the tag “Shut up and calculate”. It was because Einstein was so outraged by the contradictions inherent in the Copenhagen interpretation that he put forward the EPR paradox. Ironically, experiments have subsequently confirmed that the counter-intuitive behaviour inherent in the EPR paradox cannot be explained classically by, for example, hidden variables.

So turning to the challenge that in saying that contradictions can apply in the quantum world, I am making a statement which itself is meaninless as it might mean what it says or the opposite - that the statement that light has the nature of a particle could equally well be interpreted as meaning that light does NOT have the nature of a particle. I don’t have perfect answers for these, and don’t expect you to accept them, but I think along the following lines. In order to rescue intelligibility from any contradiction at all in reality, one has to limit the contradiction - I have already pointed out that contradictions do not occur in the normally observed macro-world, and that explosion is avoided by paraconsistent systems of logic. If we now consider the statements in question: “light behaves as a particle, light behaves as a wave at the same time and in the same respect, these are contradictory properties and so contradiction does exist in the quantum world”, then these are meta-statements that we make from the perspective of the macro-world. In other words the statements are made in a meta-language which transcends the truth statements in the object-language. Furthermore, in quantum mechanics we have to consider both the phenomenon and the interaction of the observer with the phenomenon, and so intelligible statements about the quantum world are all made in a meta-language. Thus the statement that some classical contradictions occur in the quantum world is not rendered meaningless by its content (in other words to say that contradictions occur is not the same as to say they do not occur). Of course although the content of the statement itself can be true (and would say, based on observation, is true), it cannot be interpreted intelligibly according to classical notions (ie we don’t know how to understand the nature of an entity that has ontradictory properties) and so we must conclude that classical notions are inadequate as universal content qualifiers of the quantum world.

I think that the difficulty in the challenges that you put forward arises from the use of classical notions in a domain where they do not universally apply - so that to say that the existence of one contradiction disables all other judgements in that domain is to apply the very principle which is denied to reach the conclusion. It is the case, I agree, that if we hold that non-contradiction is either universally true or false, then only the former leads to an intelligible universe, but in order to reconcile intelligibility with observation, one must acknowledge that *neither *of these is so. All of this is very difficult to think about, and you must know how nuanced various scientific and philosophical ideas about the difficulties presented by QM are. I am aware that I haven’t done a very good job of explaining my position here, but I also think your easy conclusion that non-contradiction is self-evidently transcendental and that therefore breakthroughs in physics will resolve what appear to be contradictions trivialises the situation.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

I am not a physicist, but I understand that there is experimental evidence that there is no way to simultaneously observe both the particle and wave nature of matter or light. The following report from Nature appears to confirm this:

E. Buks et al., Nature, 26 Feb. 1998

Note the relevant point here: “Now a group at the Weizmann Institute in Israel have done a sort of double slit experiment with electrons and observed (for the first time with fermions, spin-one-half particles) how the resultant interference pattern dissipates the more you watch the electrons as they go through the slits, thus demonstrating Niels Bohr’s complementarity principle which states that objects can have wave and particle properties, but not both at the same time.”

It is well known that the visibility of the fringes in a double slit experiment is inversely proportional to the extent to which one determines whether photons in their particle-like guise pass through one or other slit. This does not undermine the confidence in the simultaneous wave and particle nature of light (which does not depend on measurements at the slits)

With regard to the Bohr principle of complementarity, while he did initially include wave/particle duality as a complementary pair, he later abandoned it in the light of photon counting experiments such as one I have described, and focused on momentum/position or kinematics/dynamics as the complementary pair. In any case, the idea that one cannot simultaneously detect the wave and particle properties of light is negated by the photon counting experiment that I have described.

In a later post you ask this:

A participant named Tom Mattson makes the following comment:

“In order to see the particle nature of light, you have to measure some things that are related to particle behavior. One of those things is trajectory. The bare minimum information one has to obtain to get some idea of the trajectory of a particle is two data points on the position of the particle. But in the case of the double slit experiment (in which there are no detectors at the slits), we do not obtain that information. We only have one point, namely the point at which the photon strikes the detector. We do not know which slit the photon passed through. Indeed, if we were to alter the experiment to obtain that information it would destroy the pattern on the screen. The particle nature of light is not observed in this experiment, it is simply inferred.”

Is this argument valid? If the information needed to assure us that the photon is in particle form when it hits the detector is not immediately given, but is merely inferred, then the claim that it is a particle at that point is not a direct observation, as has been claimed.

No the argument is not valid for three reasons 1) it is not true that the only way to detect the particle nature of light is by measuring the trajectory of photons - in a photon counting experiment the particle nature of light is manifested by the fact that the light is quantised and the position of each quantum in the detection plane is discrete and measurable and 2) if it were to be the case that measuring the trajectory is a minimum requirement for observing the particle nature of light, then it would be unobservable, and no-one would be able to claim validly that light can be manifested as particles, for it is not possible to measure the trajectory of a photon, ie its position on two different planes, for its measurement in the first plane destroys its state such that it is either undetectable in the second plane or what is detected is not correlated with the original state and 3) the person commenting seems to be confused by the terms “observed” and “inferred” - observations are not limited to what we observe directly with our unaided senses - and indeed the particle nature of light would be as much an inference from a measurement of trajectory were such a thing possible as it is from the observation that a photon is detected at a specific time and location.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[StAnastasia]

Human bodies come into being by no other way than by the creation of the human soul. This is why we can say that personhood begins at conception.

This raises an interesting complex of questions:

(1) Why are sperm and egg even needed for conception?

(2) Are sperm and egg cells needed for the conception of other animals?

(3) Were they needed for the conception of the hominid ancestors of humans?

(4) Did they cease to be necessary when we crossed the threshold from pre-human hominids to the status of full Homo sapiens?

(5) What if that threshold was not crossed in one generation, but in many generations? Was there are period when sperm and egg were partially but not completely necessary?

StAnastasia

 

[grannymh]

At long last the discussion has arrived at the molecular evidence that precludes the possibility that the human population has passed through a bottleneck of two individuals in the last several million years. What follows will necessarily get rather technical, but there is no help for that.

Dang!
Just when the conversation gets around to Dr. Francisco J. Ayala, a fascinating fellow to say the least, I have to bow out and unsubscribe. I’m working on a major project regarding the Catholic Eucharist so I will occasionally visit related threads.

I do believe in Adam and Eve and am confident that there is a real “treasure map” to their literal place in the world. If you find it, please save it for my return.

Blessings and good thoughts to all.
granny,

John 3: 16 & 17

 

[anthony022071]

This raises an interesting complex of questions:

(1) Why are sperm and egg even needed for conception?

For the bodily

(2) Are sperm and egg cells needed for the conception of other animals?

I don’t think all creatures are conceived in that way.

(3) Were they needed for the conception of the hominid ancestors of humans?

I don’t believe that humans had any other ancestry than a human one. Humans are not reproductively compatible with any other species and there is no way to demonstrate that there ever was a reproductive connection with any other species. Speciation has never been observed to go farther than partial reproductive isolation,hybrid breakdown,and polyploidism.

 

[anthony022071]

For the transmission of bodily substance from parents to offspring. There isn’t a dichotomy between God’s creation of the soul,which is spirit,and the use of the parents’ physical substance to create the bodies of offspring. Living creatures are co-creators with God,and they reproduce by the power of the Spirit. It is the Spirit that gives life to the physical.

I don’t think all creatures are conceived in that way.

I don’t believe that humans had any other ancestry than a human one. Humans are not reproductively compatible with any other species and there is no way to demonstrate that there ever was a reproductive connection with any other species. Speciation has never been observed to go farther than partial reproductive isolation,hybrid breakdown,and polyploidism.

 

[StAnastasia]

I don’t believe that humans had any other ancestry than a human one. Humans are not reproductively compatible with any other species and there is no way to demonstrate that there ever was a reproductive connection with any other species. Speciation has never been observed to go farther than partial reproductive isolation,hybrid breakdown,and polyploidism.

That’s a novel theory. You might propose a paper on that to a genetics of paleontology conference and get some feedback from the professionals. However, I suspect you would not get much of a hearing at such a gathering, as the descent of humans from earlier progenitors in the primate family tree was established long ago, and there is no longer any serious debated about it.

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

I do believe in Adam and Eve and am confident that there is a real “treasure map” to their literal place in the world. If you find it, please save it for my return. Blessings and good thoughts to all.granny,
John 3: 16 & 17

Grannymh, I had lunch with Francisco the week before Easter, and I agree he is a very interesting fellow. I don’t know what he’d think about your literal Adam and Eve theory, although I suspect he would interpret it symbolically like most theologians do. As to your treasure map, didn’t Ponce de Leon think the Garden of Eden was in Florida?

StAnastasia

 

[anthony022071]

This raises an interesting complex of questions:

(1) Why are sperm and egg even needed for conception?

For the transmission of physical substance from parents to offspring. There’s no dichotomy between God’s creation of the soul and the use of the sperm and egg of parents to create the body. Living creatures are co-creators with God,but only by the power of the Spirit. It is the Spirit that gives life to the physical substance of creatures.

 

[StAnastasia]

For the transmission of physical substance from parents to offspring. There’s no dichotomy between God’s creation of the soul and the use of the sperm and egg of parents to create the body. Living creatures are co-creators with God,but only by the power of the Spirit. It is the Spirit that gives life to the physical substance of creatures.

Does the spirit give life to the physical substance of all animals (e.g. earth worms, sea urchins, polar bears, humans)? Is there any scientific evidence that your theory is correct, or is it merely a faith statement?

Your theory raises some very interesting implications, which perhaps we could discuss:

First: There is no definable moment of conception, because (a) it takes time for the sperm to penetrate the egg, and (b) there is a time delay between fertilization and implantation. I wonder when along this continuum the soul is infused, or whether it gradually works its way into the fertilized egg over a period of hours.

Second, Is a soul infused at each conception? Fifty percent of human conceptions end in spontaneous abortion simply because the blastocyst is genetically incompatible with life. Do these conceptions not have a soul infused in them to begin with, or is half of humanity received into eternity without ever laving lived outside the womb, and without ever having had a moral life?

Third, in the case of identical twins, are two souls infused into the one fertilized egg at the beginning in anticipation of the twinning, or does God create and infuse a second soul when the egg divides into twins? If the latter, which twin keeps the original soul, and which one gets the replacement soul?

These are fascinating questions.

StAnastasia

 

[Dr.Bonnette]

To hecd2 re posts 224 and 225:

Alec,

In respect to the problems attendant to describing what appear to be contradictory properties of waves and particles, you write: “I am aware that I haven’t done a very good job of explaining my position here,”

Actually, I think you have done an amazingly good job of explaining your position.

Unfortunately, I fear that the use of metalanguage about seemingly intractable logical puzzles is what one does simply to avoid the evident inconveniences of the problem itself. Still, from your perspective, there is little else you can do – since you are convinced that non-contradiction simply does not apply at the micro level, based on your analysis of the results of wave-particle duality experiments.

The difficulty is that any statements you make about the micro level are made from the perspective of the macro level, which means that you must really embrace non-contradiction as an absolutely valid macro level principle, for fear of weakening your observations about the micro level. If the macro level achieves its validity only from the stochastics supporting the macro phenomena, the difficulty then is that it appears that the macro level really isn’t fully valid, but only appears as such for, shall we say, “technical reasons.” But if the macro level isn’t really all that valid, then how do we know that our judgments about the micro level can be ultimately trusted either? In that case, the best we are really saying is that there “appear” to be contradictions in the micro level, but we really cannot be sure that there are.

From another direction, I am concerned about your suggestion much earlier that the cosmos itself might uncaused. The concept of causality is seen in classical metaphysics as implicitly derived from the concept of being. (See Lagrange, Maritain, Gilson, et al.) If that analysis is rigorous, and my own study of it convinces me that it is, then in denying that the whole universe might be caused, you again are implicitly denying the validity of non-contradiction at the macro level – in spades. Unless you are familiar with the metaphysical analysis that leads to this inference, I realize it might not mean anything to you – but it is another reason that I cannot share your denial of the universal validity of these first principles. In other words, I have reason to believe that your rejection of these first principles permeates the macro order as well as the micro order – despite your honest belief that you have restricted contradictions solely to the micro level.

Recall that our points of departure in accepting non-contradiction are not the same. You appear to think it is an intuition based on general sense experience, whereas I view it as the intellect’s act of understanding being in its first reflective experience of any reality at all – an instant realization that being is not non-being, and that being cannot simultaneously be non-being, regardless of what type, structure, essence, size, or whatever being is involved.

Moreover, the intellect operates by forming judgments. And judgments must be either affirmative or negative, that is to say, either a predicate is joined to a subject or it is not – all of which presupposes the principle of non-contradiction. The problem then, is not whether we are dealing with the macro or micro level of reality, but the very nature of how the intellect works. That is why classical logic forbids the kind of judgments which allow contradictory states in any order of reality. Now, if you say that this then represents an inherent limitation to the function of the intellect itself, you have opened an even larger can of worms – since then all judgments become suspect, scientific and otherwise! The validity of the intellect arises precisely because it is self-reflectively aware of its own conformity to being, and thus sees that it sees the truth of its own judgments, that is, their conformity to reality. The intellect “runs” on being, and that is why once we encounter any being at all, we know the “basic rules” of all being. Restricting knowledge to a sensist epistemology would strip the intellect of its natural power (which we always exercise in any case anyway!) to know with certitude that contradictory states cannot exist. That is why you remain a uncomfortable with your own explanation of what you conclude from your study of photon wave-particle experiments.

For an issue that is completely settled according to your account, I find it interesting that the internet still appears to have some physicists trying to figure out how to avoid or resolve wave-particle duality. I know. You will tell me that they just do not understand the nature of the contradiction entailed.

 

[buffalo]

To hecd2 re posts 224 and 225:

Alec,

In respect to the problems attendant to describing what appear to be contradictory properties of waves and particles, you write: “I am aware that I haven’t done a very good job of explaining my position here,”

Actually, I think you have done an amazingly good job of explaining your position.

Unfortunately, I fear that the use of metalanguage about seemingly intractable logical puzzles is what one does simply to avoid the evident inconveniences of the problem itself. Still, from your perspective, there is little else you can do – since you are convinced that non-contradiction simply does not apply at the micro level, based on your analysis of the results of wave-particle duality experiments.

The difficulty is that any statements you make about the micro level are made from the perspective of the macro level, which means that you must really embrace non-contradiction as an absolutely valid macro level principle, for fear of weakening your observations about the micro level. If the macro level achieves its validity only from the stochastics supporting the macro phenomena, the difficulty then is that it appears that the macro level really isn’t fully valid, but only appears as such for, shall we say, “technical reasons.” But if the macro level isn’t really all that valid, then how do we know that our judgments about the micro level can be ultimately trusted either? In that case, the best we are really saying is that there “appear” to be contradictions in the micro level, but we really cannot be sure that there are.

From another direction, I am concerned about your suggestion much earlier that the cosmos itself might uncaused. The concept of causality is seen in classical metaphysics as implicitly derived from the concept of being. (See Lagrange, Maritain, Gilson, et al.) If that analysis is rigorous, and my own study of it convinces me that it is, then in denying that the whole universe might be caused, you again are implicitly denying the validity of non-contradiction at the macro level – in spades. Unless you are familiar with the metaphysical analysis that leads to this inference, I realize it might not mean anything to you – but it is another reason that I cannot share your denial of the universal validity of these first principles. In other words, I have reason to believe that your rejection of these first principles permeates the macro order as well as the micro order – despite your honest belief that you have restricted contradictions solely to the micro level.

Recall that our points of departure in accepting non-contradiction are not the same. You appear to think it is an intuition based on general sense experience, whereas I view it as the intellect’s act of understanding being in its first reflective experience of any reality at all – an instant realization that being is not non-being, and that being cannot simultaneously be non-being, regardless of what type, structure, essence, size, or whatever being is involved.

Moreover, the intellect operates by forming judgments. And judgments must be either affirmative or negative, that is to say, either a predicate is joined to a subject or it is not – all of which presupposes the principle of non-contradiction. The problem then, is not whether we are dealing with the macro or micro level of reality, but the very nature of how the intellect works. That is why classical logic forbids the kind of judgments which allow contradictory states in any order of reality. Now, if you say that this then represents an inherent limitation to the function of the intellect itself, you have opened an even larger can of worms – since then all judgments become suspect, scientific and otherwise! The validity of the intellect arises precisely because it is self-reflectively aware of its own conformity to being, and thus sees that it sees the truth of its own judgments, that is, their conformity to reality. The intellect “runs” on being, and that is why once we encounter any being at all, we know the “basic rules” of all being. Restricting knowledge to a sensist epistemology would strip the intellect of its natural power (which we always exercise in any case anyway!) to know with certitude that contradictory states cannot exist. That is why you remain a uncomfortable with your own explanation of what you conclude from your study of photon wave-particle experiments.

For an issue that is completely settled according to your account, I find it interesting that the internet still appears to have some physicists trying to figure out how to avoid or resolve wave-particle duality. I know. You will tell me that they just do not understand the nature of the contradiction entailed.

 

[eichenb2]

Isn’t this the argument that just about everybody uses though?

“Your frame of reference is too small/big.”

The problem with saying that though is that these are essentially metaphysical statements.

How can we possiblely address the validity of a metaphysical statement?

We can’t - which is why agnostics laugh at arguments that eventually devolve down into “Prove/Disprove Materialism.”

It can’t be done. Ultimately, we make our choices on what appears to be rational based on a set of principles that we have come to accept as such.

The scientific method is built on a couple of assumptions.

1. there is something that is true or real.
2. there we have to ability to know this truth or reality

So the question is not a metaphysical stumper, it is a basic rational assumption. This is an extremely important point. If rationality is called into question, it hinders studies of religion and sciences. It would be the fulfill of G.K. Chesterton’s fear that evolution is not threat to religion, but to rationality.

 

[hugh_miller]

The scientific method is built on a couple of assumptions.

1. there is something that is true or real.
2. there we have to ability to know this truth or reality

So the question is not a metaphysical stumper, it is a basic rational assumption. This is an extremely important point. If rationality is called into question, it hinders studies of religion and sciences. It would be the fulfill of G.K. Chesterton’s fear that evolution is not threat to religion, but to rationality.

I do not have much time these days to enter into long discussions as I have taken my guardian angel’s advice and the advice from one of the ardent pro-evolution regulars on one of the threads RE origins to submit a twenty some page paper with many references to a scientific journal. So please forgive me for submitting the abstract of the paper and then bowing out to continue preparing another technical paper for submission. I think that the paper as seen in the abstract meets the criteria noted above regarding the scientific method.

**DIRECT RADIOCARBON DATING OF DINOSAUR BONES AND OTHER FOSSILS - **same radiocarbon age-range as that for megafauna.
Author: Hugh R. Miller

Abstract:

The discovery of collagen in a Tyrannosaurus-rex dinosaur femur bone was recently reported in the journal Science. Its geologic location was the Hell Creek Formation in the State of Montana, United States of America. When it was learned in 2005 that Triceratops and Hadrosaur femur bones in excellent condition were discovered by the Glendive (MT) Dinosaur & Fossil Museum this writer asked and received permission to saw them in half and collect samples for RC testing of any bone collagen that might be extracted. Indeed both bones contained collagen and conventional dates of 30,890 +/- 380 for the *Triceratops *and 23,170 +/-170 for the *Hadrosaur *were obtained using the Accelerated Mass Spectrometer. Total organic carbon was then extracted and pretreated to remove potential contaminants and concordant radiocarbon dates were obtained, all of which were similar to radiocarbon dates for megafauna.
Key Words:

Radiocarbon dating, Dinosaur, bone collagen, organic carbon, bone apatite, fossil wood, amber, megafauna
COMMENTS continued: What does the above scientific data suggest? It helps give a reality check to people who are deceived by the regurgitated Mithras religion that we came from a rock, i.e. and we evolved thereafter from bacteria ad nauseum. Such data provides the ammunition for scientists and other folks who support the church fathers to continue to challenge the evolution hypothesis in the lab, field and theological venues.

Unlike Chesterton I do consider evolution as a threat to religion [and faith in the word of God; and, it has also brought much evil consequences to all of us which Chesterton did not live to see unfold]. But I do agree with Chesterton that evolution is a threat to rationality so I shall continue to do battle with the deceptions created by the evolutionary hypothesis as best I can. I do this as a humble chemist using the talents and the circumstances that the Lord has provided and the team of scientists, educators and theologians with whom I am privileged to associate. Moses sizzles as Darwin fizzles.

 

[Dr.Bonnette]

To hecd2:

Alec,

If I accept your claims about molecular biology, case closed. Adam and Eve do not exist. Worse yet, you have proven that they cannot exist!

Is that the end of the story? Not quite. Let us look at the overall picture we have developed on this thread.

Your worldview is now rather complete: You affirm that you are a sensist and a materialist. You affirm that you do not believe in a personal God, and reject any formal proofs for God’s existence, in part, because there is no empirical way to verify His actual existence. You deny the existence of a spiritual, intellective soul in man. You deny the universal, transcendental validity of the principle of non-contradiction and all other metaphysical first principles. You describe yourself as a “pragmatic verificationist.” You reject the validity of miracles and the theological claims of the Catholic Church. You insist that real contradictions exist at the subatomic level. And, of course, you maintain that the findings of molecular biology exclude any possibility that a single set of first parents for all mankind could have existed within the last six million years. Relevant to this thread, you conclude that scientific findings exclude the possibility of a literal Adam and Eve.

Your inference about Adam and Eve is understandable, given your firm commitment to natural science as your primary source of formalized information about the world, and your absence of any contravening theological or philosophical reasons not to enthrone that source above all others.

Not surprisingly, my view of reality differs radically from yours. On almost every point. Indeed, full exploration of the substance of these differences would require extensive study of major topics in natural science, epistemology, philosophy of nature, and metaphysics – something that cannot be adequately done in a single 1000 posting thread (to put it mildly!). To return to our main theme, therefore, I am going to speak more in terms of outlines of positions, leaving it to the reader to investigate whether a particular line of argument may be fruitful to show that “belief” in Adam and Eve is “warranted.” Given the diversity of our worldviews, it is to be expected that what one of us finds “warranted,” the other may find totally “unwarranted.” If I maintain that God’s existence can be demonstrated, that the spirituality and immortality of the human soul can be demonstrated, that the principle of non-contradiction must be transcendentally valid, that some genuine miracles demonstrably occurred, and so forth, clearly I will assent to some truths – even pertinent to the literal existence of Adam and Eve, which you will claim to be absurd and unwarranted.

You think theology is irrelevant to the question of whether Adam and Eve existed. But religious revelation is very relevant both in terms of providing sound reasons to believe what is taught, and in terms of the content of that teaching. I shall not reargue the nature or evidence for miracles which point clearly to Catholic belief. For those who wish to examine the number and quality of these miracles, consult the following: Raised from the Dead: True Stories of 400 Resurrection Miracles by Fr. Albert J. Hebert (Tan Books, 1986), Eucharistic Miracles by Joan Carroll Cruz (Tan Books, 1987), Mysteries Marvels Miracles: In the Lives of the Saints by Joan Carroll Cruz (Tan Books, 1997), and The Miracle of Lourdes by Ruth Cranston (Galilee Trade, 1988). The last includes fourteen recently documented cures updated by the Lourdes Medical Commission. (Popular Library edition, 1955)

Not surprisingly, these phenomena range from the historically obscure, doubtful, or poorly documented to the recent, scientifically well-documented, and theologically approved. Skeptics often use less certain cases to generalize to the rejection of all miracles, or offer philosophical arguments against their very possibility. That is why the detailed “before and after” records of the Lourdes Medical Commission offer critical scientific evidence. The Medical Commission is composed of distinguished physicians and scientists, operating independently of the Church. To suggest that its findings are not highly scientific is to apply the concept of “scientific” selectively. It is true that only some 67 cures have been approved by the Church, out of multiple times that number certified as beyond any natural explanation by the Medical Commission. But, to my knowledge, no one, including Bernadette and the “Lady,” ever claimed that any miracles whatever would occur at Lourdes. Nor is God required to keep on performing them for our incredulity. The central and ongoing “miracle of Lourdes” is in the spiritual order of conversion and acceptance of God’s will. The miracle of Fatima stands as history’s most widely witnessed. Explanations of mass hallucinations or differing experiences ignore the fact that some 70,000 people witnessed an extraordinary event predicted by the children, “so that all may believe.” Even O Seculo (a pro-government, anti-clerical, Lisbon paper) published an article the next day by its atheistic director, Avelino de Almeida, entitled, “Terrifying Event! How The Sun Danced In The Sky Of Fatima.” No astronomers confirmed this event. Rather, it was a massive, varying, religious-content apparition, whose physically “objective” component was the sudden drying of 70,000 witnesses whose woolen clothing had been soaked in drenching rain which suddenly ended just before the apparition commenced.

Continued…

 

[Dr.Bonnette]

To hecd2:

Continued…

While no one can force anyone to believe anything, Catholics may rightly “warrant their belief” in the Catholic Church based on this continuous history of miracles, beginning with the Resurrection itself – miracles largely filled with Catholic specificity. Moreover, this massive evidence serves only to complement the often ignored theological science of apologetics, which is the rational defense of the Catholic Church.

And what does the Catholic Church teach about a literal Adam and Eve? The dogma of Original Sin teaches that Adam lost sanctity and justice by transgressing the divine commandment, that this single sin is transmitted to all his posterity by descent – not by imitation, and that it dwells in every human being – transmitted by the natural act of generation. (Denzinger 789-791) Pius XII makes clear in Humani generis that this is “a sin actually committed by an individual Adam.” (H.G. #37) Catholic teaching is thus clear about the actual existence of Adam as an individual human being. And since Adam transmitted original sin by the natural act of generation, it necessarily follows that he did so with the co-operation of a female spouse, Eve. Hence, belief in a literal Adam and Eve is warranted.

Further, the miracles of Lourdes arise in a context which points specifically to Adam’s existence, since St. Bernadette Soubirous told authorities that the Lady who appeared to her in 1858 said that she was the “Immaculate Conception.” The dogma of the Immaculate Conception had been defined just four years earlier in 1854, and declares that the Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived free from original sin, the sin committed by Adam. Hence, Lourdes specifically, though indirectly, confirms the literal existence of Adam and Eve.

As to the question of theological polygenism, Pius XII teaches that Catholics are not free to uphold polygenism, because "it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own." (H.G. #37) Clearly, the Holy Father was aware of the complexity of the relationship between polygenism and the implications of original sin – and thus spoke about it in a manner somewhat more carefully nuanced than he did in reference to his prior comments about the freedom of theological speculation regarding evolutionary theory and human origins. Theological monogenism may well eventually become firm teaching, but that simply is not presently the case. What this means is that it would presently constitute theological dissent for a Catholic to advocate polygenism. Somewhat paradoxically, at this same time, it appears that one cannot absolutely declare that a proof of the reality of polygenism is equivalent to a disproof of the Catholic religion, and of its teachings about Adam and Eve. All this is not an attempt to avoid direct confrontation over the scientific evidence for or against a relatively recent single pair of first parents for all mankind. Rather, this is simply an accurate statement of the present theological situation.

Since belief in the Catholic Church is warranted by objective evidence, and since the Catholic Church teaches that Adam and Eve existed, belief in a literal Adam and Eve is warranted. One must never forget here that we are talking about warrant for “belief,” not a direct and absolute demonstration of two human beings hidden deeply in the recesses of time, as Teilhard de Chardin says, “*…positively ungraspable, unrevealable to our eyes at no matter what magnification.” *The Phenomenon of Man (Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1959), p 185, note.] The burden of proof remains upon those who would declare Adam and Eve could never have existed.

 

[hecd2]

…it remains the case that the Prima Via is primarily a metaphysical argument, as those in the Thomistic tradition are well aware. I said that St. Thomas’ argument was PRIMARILY metaphysical, not that he used no examples from the physical world. Yes, it does start in sensation, as do all Thomistic arguments.

I quoted from Aristotle’s Metaphysics as well as from his Physics. Of course the First Way is a metaphysical argument, but it is one that is entirely derivative and Aristotlean. Without the definitions and arguments developed by Aristotle in his Physics and Metaphysics, the first Way is entirely foundationless. You agree that the argument starts in sensation and, indeed, the First Way argument can be traced all the way through Aristotle’s Metaphysics to his definitions in Physics.

It is ridiculous to admit on the one hand that all Thomistic arguments start in sensation, and on the other hand to dismiss powerful counter-arguments from the physical world that undermine the very foundation of the argument. (Separate from the points that I have put forward that demonstrate the fallacies at the root of the First Way, the physical example, the only example, that Aquinas does choose to use is a logical shambles, since he treats fire and wood as comparable entities, a category error, and he treats being hot as a binary property of a state: “Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it”, rather than as an analogue or continuous property, so that something that is actually hot can also be potentially hot as it can always be heated further. Furthermore, something that is potentially hot such as a lump of sodium, will become very hot by immersing it in cold water, not by the action of something that is actually hot). All of this makes a complete mess of the argument from motion - it is worthless as a proof for God.

…St. Thomas is working in a different dimension. He is an Aristotelian, but he is writing some 15 centuries after Aristotle, and is well aware of all the other philosophers who intervened, including St. Augustine, Plotinus, Maimonides, Avicenna, Bonaventure, and so forth.

That might well be so, but the First Way is entirely derivative of Aristotlean metaphysics - it is not in the Platonic or neo-Platonic tradition and so owes nothing to Augustine, Plotinus or Bonaventure and whereas Maimonides and Ibn Sina (and Ibn Rushd) develop Aristotlean ideas, the foundational concepts remain Aristotlean. In referrring to this list of other thinkers, you do nothing to rebut the fact that the First Way is steeped in, and depends entirely on Aristotlean Physics and Metaphysics.

It is true that his Summa Contra Gentiles arguments to God’s existence use more of Aristotle’s arguments, but the Summa Theologiae is quite different in method and tone. He is writing there for students who already are well versed in philosophy, and the Five Ways are merely quick summaries of arguments well known to them.

And the First Way is, undoubtedly, Aristotlean. For if it is not, it is an argument without a single valid premise.

And yes, the focus on act and potency, regardless of the examples employed, raises the argument to the strictly metaphysical level, even though it begins in that motion which is evident to the senses. The definition of motion he employs is clearly the one based on act and potency, and that is why he speaks of act and potency throughout.

And why the only example that he gives in the First Way is a physical example? To “students who already are well versed in philosophy”? Come on - you know that is absurd. The Thomistic metaphysical insights depend on the interpretations of the initial sense experience being valid (otherwise they are arguments without premise, mere whim and speculation), and in this case they are foundationally flawed, thus destroying the entire argument.

I admire your tenacity in attempting to defend the indefensible, but the fact is that the First Way long ago ceased to be an argument with any validity.

And no, I do not intend to lead this thread way off topic. Most readers believe in God and are quite willing to assume God’s existence when discussing the reality of Adam and Eve.

But it is more relevant to the topic than our interesting but peripheral discussion of the transcendence of non-contradiction, since a) it is an argument about whether discussions from classical metaphyics can ever warrant beliefs which are in conflict with direct physical evidence (I say that they cannot), and b) whether Revelation as taught by the Magisterium can be warrant for a belief in a literal Adam and Eve if belief in God Himself is not logically warranted.

Alec
evolutionpages.com