Scientists Unveil Missing Link In Evolution

[Arandur]

If your attempt was to reach across the isle (again, bridging) I don’t see a reason why this is false. I think some reading up on ID is due:
…
uncommondescent.com/faq/

You first, M0nkey

Does this mean you do believe that the idea of common descent and all the mechanisms of evolution (except for natural selection–I’ll get to that in a moment) are compatible with the idea that God designed them all?

If so, I think that covers an enormous amount of ground for what I thought had been conflicts. If we’re just talking about chance (Reggie’s holdout) and natural selection with regard to evolution, that’s much easier.

However, I will note that those other mechanisms and ideas correspond much more to the symbolic interpretation of the Creation accounts in Scripture that the Church has allowed and even leaned in favor of. I think that in light of what science has shown, it one must remain very open to the symbolic interpretation and admit that the literal interpretation, while permissible, does not appear likely. This does not mean that Scripture is in any way false, as the Church has discussed the import truths inherent in the stories.

I don’t have a problem with any of these save for natural selection; if my understanding is correct, natural selection is defined as the only guiding principle – I think you have to accept it on those terms – and therefore does not fully support bio diversity. Plus, survival of the fittest is hardly observable in nature: … I completely and utterly disagree with any notion that resembles survival of the fittest as it is in contrast to Christianity. In fact, I really think it’s just another religion: anti-Christianity.

Take a look at the dinosaurs for example, do you think they were weak? What about the mammoth, the saber tooth tiguer, all these creatures had natural selection in their favor, yet they are no longer. …Human beings are another example of how survival of the fittest doesn’t hold, we have no claws, no teeth, no fur, virtually no protection against the elements, and yet managed to remain extant. It really only takes just a bit of common sense to refute this obstinate idea.

Thanks for answering the question!

I think you don’t quite understand the concept of natural selection as used strictly in biology. It has been altered from “survival of the fittest” to mean “… the process by which genetic mutations that enhance reproduction become, and remain, more common in successive generations of a population.” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Natural_selection
Please read the sources (that one and also this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection).

It is not about “survival.” It is about “reproduction.” Natural selection is inherently a life-driven, procreative process! In this way it is wonderfully consistent with Christian principles!

Furthermore, as I have quoted, it is indeed self-evident. Unless you can find a flaw in this logic, you cannot disagree with the concept:
"It has often been called a “self-evident” mechanism because it necessarily follows from three simple facts:

* Heritable variation exists within populations of organisms.
* Organisms produce more offspring than can survive.
* These offspring vary in their ability to survive and reproduce."

Natural selection necessarily follows from these FACTS. It’s just about traits of the successful reproduces becoming more common. Eminently logical.

Natural selection is also not the “only guiding principle,” as you put it. Evolution occurs by a combination of the sources of variation (sex and recombination, gene flow, population genetics, mutation) with the mechanisms (genetic drift, natural selection) and environmental factors (driving adaptation, co-evolution, and co-operation).

Natural selection is seen in nature all the time. Perhaps the most famous example is the peppered moth. It is also scene in medicine with bacteria and viruses, and in agriculture with the pest and weed responses to pesticides and herbicides.

For purposes of evolution,** I would keep all talk of human evolution separate.** There is debate on the extent to which evolution impacts humans. For instance, we have such a huge interbreeding population that variation gets homogenized. We also try to keep everyone alive, even those with genetic problems that would normally kill them pretty quickly without medical help. We also find certain recessive traits (blue eyes, red hair, etc.) to be disproportionately attractive. Our “most successful” people in terms of wealth and education tend to reproduce much less due to conscious choice than the “least sucessful” (poorest, least educated). These are just some of the ways that humans act against nature (which I’ve always admitted!) I personally don’t believe evolution is acting much on humans–in fact, we’re consciously encouraging “less successful” traits in our population. Genetics still affect the human population, but those “less successful” genes are preserved to a much higher degree among humans than would normally occur in nature.

You also misunderstand “fitness” when you are looking at physical, combative strength in your examples of dinosaurs and sabre-toothed tigers and humans. These really have nothing at all to do with “fitness,” save to the extent that they allow the organisms to successfully obtain food, reproduce, and adapt to the environment, competing within their ecological niche at least as successfully as their competitors for that niche. That is why you see fast-breeding rats overwhelming more specialized organisms when we inadvertantly bring them to new habitats, causing natives to suffer or go extinct.

It really only takes an understanding of what natural selection really is and some basic observation in nature to prove it

 

[Arandur]

For him the proof of design is the failure of evolution to produce the complex information found in nature (developed after the origin of life).

Please direct me to some of that. It sounds to me that his main focus is the origin of biological information and life in the first place, not really that the forces of evolution **using **that information work to produce diversity and new structures and speciation, etc.

First of all, I have a new-found appreciation for your views…

Thank you. My primary concern is to try to show you how the Church’s views and the words of the popes permitting belief in some form of evolution make sense, and to try to create some common ground on this issue. That is important because I think Christians are doing both truth and faith a grave disservice in the public discussion by appearing reactionary and rejecting science that is perfectly acceptable to faith. They are repeating the supposed Galileo mistake in actuality on a much grander scale. Non-Christians and even many Christians can accept science more easily than faith because it is more objective and observable, confirmable by their senses and requiring less interpretation. We must meet them first on this ground and defend natural reason, but make sure it is used properly.

That is also why I’m so keen on making distinctions. I think it is crucially important to identify the particular concepts bandied about in the evolution discussion that are wrong and that are not science–pure chance, pure materialism, no human soul, primarily. We defend reason when we point out that these are not science and, as JP2 said, an “abdication of human intelligence.” Not using those distinctions makes us look like we’re just throwing out all the observable processes of evolution for which there is strong support and no conflict to the faith, making us look like we reject objective truth and the very process of science–not being specific and making distinctions makes us look like we reject reason and perpetuate the lie that faith is opposed to science and reason.

You have stated that everything is designed. In Dr. Kreeft’s view, either there is chance or there is design. You removed that choice by stating that everything is designed – therefore, randomness does not exist.

Kreeft dismisses chance out of hand, too. He uses essentially JP2’s formula–that asserting blind chance is essentially asserting some unknowable, supernatural condition of faith, whether the materialists admit this or not. Thus you have two supernatural choices: blind unknowable chance, or intelligent design. Blind chance is just stupid, as JP2 states (an “abdication of human intelligence”) and Kreeft simply rejects (“Not chance” period). So I think I’m quite in line with them. Chance really isn’t much of a choice. Randomness is useful as description of a pattern, as I’ve said, but not for “unknowability.” Then it just essentially becomes the concept of “fate,” which is supernatural.

Now you seem to be saying that you accept two, contradictory meanings of the term “random”. Either randomness (non-design) exists or it doesn’t. You’re saying that it doesn’t – but you accept the false view that it does exist also. That is a contradiction and I really can’t continue to discuss this topic until you resolve the problem.

I’ve only said that from our perspective, things can appear in a random distribution. That’s not saying they’re unknowable. What part of this distinction do you think is invalid?

 

[Arandur]

I disagree that any of those things produce anything other than micro-evolutionary adaptations.

So no speciation? We’ve observed speciation. It happens. Why or how, if not by these mechanisms? Direct supernatural intervention?

1. Genetic mutation - mostly destructive. Not capable of producing the complexity and new features claimed for it. –mutation is only one factor in evolution, and yes, most of it isn’t good
2. Sex and recombination – occurs but results are more than is claimed.–more? I’ve heard it stressed quite a bit; I think it’s the primary source of variation, since it more often produces stable genetic innovations and combinations
3. Population genetics - a classification system at best. Shows some adaptation, not macro-evolution. –define “macro-evolution.” I’ve heard it used to mean the origin of all matter; the origin of life; or speciation. It’s hard to know what exactly people mean by it.
4. Gene flow - as above
5. Natural selection (which is self-evident based on these things: a. Heritable variation exists within populations of organisms; b. Organisms produce more offspring than can survive; c. These offspring vary in their ability to survive and reproduce)
   – not capable of producing what is claimed of it. Provides the tautology: "Natural selection is the survival of the fittest. The fittest are those that survive.’ NS has major problems, even atheistic-evolutionists are abandoning it as an explanation. –See my responses to M0nkey. “Darwinian” natural selection as “survival of the fittest” was long ago rejected and modified.
6. Genetic drift – cannot produce the complexity claimed by evolution –not alone, but in combination with other factors. What “complexity” do you find all these factors incapable of producing, btw?
7. Adaptation – micro-evolution. If that’s all evolution claimed, I’d have no problem with it.
8. Co-evolution – I don’t accept this.–you don’t accept parisitism, symbiosis, or the remarkable complementarity of plants and their pollinators or seed dispersers, or development of antibacterials or other defensive chemicals by plants as defenses?
9. Co-operation – not a function of randomness but of existing potential in the cell (evidence of design against evolution) –how did that “potential” get there? does any new “potential” ever develop?
10. Speciation – I don’t find the evidence convincing. –it’s been directly observed, as has the generation of new complex organs. They appeared to happen by the above mechanisms. Do you think they happened by direct and immediate miraculous intervention? What evidence have you for that? Or do you disagree that any new species arise, ever?
11. Extinction – produces nothing. –no, but it’s evidence of natural selection, ecological competition, effect of environmental factors on populations, and speciation–for so many species have gone extinct that one would expect a near-desolate world had there not been speciation to recover from it and fill new niches; and so many other species we know now did not seem present at the time of those other species

From my review of widely-used biology textbooks, the National Center for Science Education, and some of the biggest names in evolutionary theory – it seems like your view is in the minority.

You should know that the loudest voices often represent the minority, rather than the majority, or at least disproportionately represent the body of opinions on any given subject. 2/3rds of scientists are not atheists; that’s a good start. And, as discussed earlier, those with preconceived atheist/materialist approaches are disproportionately drawn to the sciences, as Scientism, Positivism, or other forms of materialism are their only source of meaning or understanding, having excised the more important realm of spirituality from their lives.

 

[M0nkey]

Keep in mind your definition of natural selection is not the way it’s formally defined. Take this for example:

Natural Selection
Some types of organisms within a population leave more offspring than others. Over time, the frequency of the more prolific type will increase. The difference in reproductive capability is called natural selection. Natural selection is the only mechanism of adaptive evolution; it is defined as differential reproductive success of pre- existing classes of genetic variants in the gene pool.

The most common action of natural selection is to remove unfit variants as they arise via mutation. [natural selection: differential reproductive success of genotypes] In other words, natural selection usually prevents new alleles from increasing in frequency. This led a famous evolutionist, George Williams, to say “Evolution proceeds in spite of natural selection.”

Natural selection can maintain or deplete genetic variation depending on how it acts. When selection acts to weed out deleterious alleles, or causes an allele to sweep to fixation, it depletes genetic variation. When heterozygotes are more fit than either of the homozygotes, however, selection causes genetic variation to be maintained. [heterozygote: an organism that has two different alleles at a locus. | homozygote: an organism that has two identical alleles at a locus]

Individuals are selected. The example I gave earlier was an example of evolution via natural selection. [natural selection: differential reproductive success of genotypes] Dark colored moths had a higher reproductive success because light colored moths suffered a higher predation rate. The decline of light colored alleles was caused by light colored individuals being removed from the gene pool (selected against). Individual organisms either reproduce or fail to reproduce and are hence the unit of selection. One way alleles can change in frequency is to be housed in organisms with different reproductive rates. Genes are not the unit of selection (because their success depends on the organism’s other genes as well); neither are groups of organisms a unit of selection. There are some exceptions to this “rule,” but it is a good generalization.

Organisms do not perform any behaviors that are for the good of their species. An individual organism competes primarily with others of it own species for its reproductive success. Natural selection favors selfish behavior because any truly altruistic act increases the recipient’s reproductive success while lowering the donors. Altruists would disappear from a population as the non- altruists would reap the benefits, but not pay the costs, of altruistic acts. Many behaviors appear altruistic. Biologists, however, can demonstrate that these behaviors are only apparently altruistic. Cooperating with or helping other organisms is often the most selfish strategy for an animal. This is called reciprocal altruism. A good example of this is blood sharing in vampire bats. In these bats, those lucky enough to find a meal will often share part of it with an unsuccessful bat by regurgitating some blood into the other’s mouth. Biologists have found that these bats form bonds with partners and help each other out when the other is needy. If a bat is found to be a “cheater,” (he accepts blood when starving, but does not donate when his partner is) his partner will abandon him. The bats are thus not helping each other altruistically; they form pacts that are mutually beneficial.

**Natural selection favors traits or behaviors that increase a genotype’s inclusive fitness. **Closely related organisms share many of the same alleles. In diploid species, siblings share on average at least 50% of their alleles. The percentage is higher if the parents are related. So, helping close relatives to reproduce gets an organism’s own alleles better represented in the gene pool. The benefit of helping relatives increases dramatically in highly inbred species. In some cases, organisms will completely forgo reproducing and only help their relatives reproduce. Ants, and other eusocial insects, have sterile castes that only serve the queen and assist her reproductive efforts. The sterile workers are reproducing by proxy.

Natural selection does not have any foresight. It only allows organisms to adapt to their current environment. Structures or behaviors do not evolve for future utility. An organism adapts to its environment at each stage of its evolution. As the environment changes, new traits may be selected for. Large changes in populations are the result of cumulative natural selection. Changes are introduced into the population by mutation; the small minority of these changes that result in a greater reproductive output of their bearers are amplified in frequency by selection.

talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

 

[edwest2]

Leading Scientists Still Reject God. From the journal Nature:

stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

It appears that their work has had an influence on them.

Peace,
Ed

 

[RACJ]

Let’s be clear, it doesn’t bother me that purely scientific evolution is taught in high school and college science classes. The philosophical aspect should be reserved for other classes.

 Setting aside the point that I don't believe that macro-evolution ever occurred, why should we be ashamed of saying that life without creation is impossible in any venue? I refuse to accept that probability laws must be excluded in scientific discussions of design. My views do not deserve second class status. 
 An MIT engineer recently described the human ear as "a super radio with 3500 parallel channels". Might the ear have *evolved* one channel at a time? That's crazy. Just b/c there is little of value on any of these channels is no reason to discard the intelligent design of this magnificent organ! ;) Rob

 

[edwest2]

Whatever is taught in science class is clearly being reconfigured and amplified by all media. The desperate attempt to popularize the evoloution=science=reason=reality idea, to the exclusion of all else, is a problem. Any tool, and science is a tool, can be used for good or ill. By attaching a purely atheist conviction to ‘science’ distorts it to the point where many leading scientists themselves come to believe that the little engine of evolution not only could but did.

Even in science programs about life in the universe, scientists tell us water and a certain temperature range will lead to the development of the ‘building blocks of life’ (amino acids), followed by actual life. The problem with that idea is that I should be able to take some inorganic chemicals, put it in a bag, shake, and it should now be filled with life.

Scientists assume this but cannot do it in the lab. This tells me the building blocks of life idea is not true. It cannot be demonstrated.

Peace,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

So no speciation? We’ve observed speciation. It happens. Why or how, if not by these mechanisms? Direct supernatural intervention?

You have asked me at least 7 new questions regarding micro-biology and evolutionary science. I’m flattered that you’re interested in my opinions on these matters.

“Species” is a name given to various organisms by taxonomists. It is claimed that dogs, wolves, and coyotes are different species. They all can, however, interbreed. There is no hard and fast division between species and examples given of speciation that has unconvincing at best. Recall, the story is that bacteria evolved into birds, and flowers, and humans and whales. Why did this happen? The only “motive” is survival advantage – and this is not adequate as an explanation. Where is the mathematics proving that there was enough time in the history of the earth to accomplish this task? Where are the probability studies explaining how new vital organs were “created” by mutations (which are mostly destructive). If the only mutations available are on the microscopic level – then where are the fossils showing these massive number of transitions needed to move from bacteria to human?

A recent story in the pro-evolution journal BioEssays admits that there is no plausible explanation for the appearance of new forms in the Cambrian explosion.

Professor Michael Behe has experimented with some evolutionary claims about speciation and found that if it does happen, it is so rare and so inconsequential as to be impossible on the scale needed to explain the diversity of life on earth. There are limits to what mutations and natural selection can produce, in spite of the exaggerated claims to the contrary.

This is from a Darwinian-critic who asserts that there has been observed speciation.

There actually are some confirmed cases of observed speciatlon in plants—all of them due to au increase in the number of chromosomes, or “polyploidy.” In the first decades of the twentieth century, Swedish scientist Arno Muntzing used two plant species to make a hybrid that underwent chromosome doubling to produce hempnettle, a member of the mint family that had already been found In nature. Polyploldy can also physically or chemically induced without hybridization.’
Observed cases of speciation by polyploidy. however, are limited to flowering plants. According to evolutionary biologist Douglas J. Futuyma. polyploidv “does not confer major now morphological characteristics… [andi does not cause the evolution of now genera” or higher levels in the biological hierarchy. Darwinism depends on the splitting of one species into two, which then diverge and split and diverge and split, over and over again. Only this could produce the branching-tree pattern required Darwinian evolution, in which all species are modified descendants a common ancestor.’

Again, this is extremely limited as compared to what has been claimed for the “creative power” of evolution (to produce every life form on the planet).
But for other reasons, I’m not convinced even that much has any meaning.

Attempting to observe speciation is complicated by the fact that biologists have not been able to agree on a definition of “species,” since no single definition fits every case. For example, a definition applicable to living, sexually reproducing organisms might make no sense when applied to fossils or bacteria. In their 2004 book Speciation, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Ott point out that **there are more than twenty-five definitions of “species.” **how can we choose among them? “Biologists want species concepts to be useful for some purpose.” write Coyno and Orr. “but differ in what that purpose should be. We can think of at least five such goals.” A species concept is useful, they explain, if it (1) helps biologists to classify organisms; (2) corresponds to the entities In nature; (3) helps us understand how those entities originate; (4) represents evolutionary history; and (5) applies to as many organisms as possible. Coyne and Orr acknowledge that “no species concept will accomplish even most of these purposes.” but they “feel that. when deciding on a species concept. one should first identify the nature of one’s ‘species problem,’ and then choose the concept best at solving that problem.

So again, this is speculative and unconvincing. I would take it farther because it is essentially meaningless when compared to the enormity of the task of proving that evolution is the cause of all of the complexity of the cell (the earliest known single-celled organisms possess an incomprehensibe complexity of organized and purposeful function).

Again, the attempt to close-off discussions of Origin of Life from the serious problems of evolutionary theory are an indication that there is something to hide. It’s clearly logical and obvious that the origin of life has a massive and profound effect on the claims of evolution. How did it happen that all life forms share the same biological constants? Where are the non-RNA/DNA forms of life that competed with the surviors that we see today? I’m sure Dr. Meyers will touch on this in his new book.

 

[reggieM]

More on the many problems with the claims of speciation:

In The Origin of Species. Darwin wrote: “According to my view, varieties are species In the process of formation, or are, as I have called them, incipient species.” But how can we possibly know whether two varieties or races) are in the process of becoming separate species? Saint Bernards and chihuahuas are two varieties that cannot interbreed naturally. Are they on their way to becoming separate species? How can we know? The Ainu people of northern Japan and the !Kung of southern Africa are separated not only geographically, linguistically, and culturally. but also (for all practical purposes) reproductively. Are they therefore “incipient species?”
Alleged Instances of Observed Speclation
The essays cited above in American Biology Teacher and on the Talk.Origins wobsite list only five examples that might be construed as alleged instances of observed Darwinian speciation. First, from a single lab population of Drosophila (fruit flies) in 1962, J. M. Thoday and J. B Gibson bred only those with the highest and lowest number of bristles (the insect equivalent of hair). After twelve generations. the experiment produced two populations that not only differed in bristle number but also showed “strong though partial isolation.” Not only did Thoday and Gibson not claim to have produced a new species, but other laboratories were unable to replicate their results.’
Second, in 1958 Thoodosius Dobzhansky and Olga Pavlovsky started laboratory population of fruit flies using a single female of the LianosA strain from Colombia. That same year, crosses between Llanos-A and several other strains produced fertile hybrids in the laboratory, but when tested again in 1963 similar crosses yielded sterile hybrids. in 1966, Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky concluded: “Llanos-A is a new race or inciplent species having arisen in the laboratory at some time between 1958 and 1963.” Coyno and Orr wrote in 2004. however, that Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky’s result “may have boon duo to contamination of cultures by other subspecies.” In any case, Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky reported only “new race or incipient species,” not a new species.’
Third, in 1964 biologists collected some marine worms from a population in Los Angeles Harbor and used them to start a lab colony. When biologists went back to the same location twenty-two years later, the original population had disappeared. so they collected worms from two other locations several miles away, and used them to start two new lab colonies. In 1989, researchers found that the two new colonies could interbreed with each other but not with the colony that had been started twenty-five years earlier. In 1992, James Weinberg and his colleagues called this an observed instance of “rapid speciation,” based on the assumption that the original colony had “speciated in the laboratory, rather than before 1964.” A few years later, however, tests performed by Weintheberg and two others showed that the original population was “already a species different m” the two new colonies “at the time when it was originally sampled in 1964.” No speciation had occurred.’
Fourth, in 1969 E. Patorniani reported an experiment on maizo in which breeding was permitted only between individuals possessing two extremes of a particular trait. Patorniani noted “an almost complete reproductive isolation between two maize populations” but did not claim that a new species had been produced.”
Finally, in the 1980s William R. Rice and George V. Salt offered some fruit flies eight different habitats and bred only those that chose the two most extreme environments, Within thirty generations the flies had sorted themselves into two populations that did not interbreed, but Rice and Salt claimed only “incipient speciation that we believe to have occurred.”
So except for polyploidy in plants. which is not what Darwin’s theory needs, there are no observed instances of the origin of species. As evolutionary biologists Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan wrote in 2002: “Speciation, whether in the remote Galapagos, in the laboratory cages of the drosophilosophers. or in the crowded sediments of the paleontologists, still has never been directly traced.” Evolution’s smoking gun is still missing.”

 

[Arandur]

Keep in mind your definition of natural selection is not the way it’s formally defined.

I tire of all these attempts to call what I am talking about solely “mine.” I provide you numerous sources to demonstrate otherwise. I provided you definitions of natural selection that come from a large user-community (Wikipedia) drawing on a number of sources (these are fairly well-reference articles). It is not “my” definition that I use. If you want to argue against it, know that you’re arguing against a mainstream usage.

Now, I’m really not sure what you mean by all your bolded portions, or how you think this disagrees with what I’ve said. I think you’ve just misinterpreted a lot.

Natural Selection
Natural selection is the only mechanism of adaptive evolution
The key word here is “adaptive.” There are other outcomes of evolution, such as speciation. And natural selection relies on the (name removed by moderator)uts of population genetics, sexual reproduction and recombination, gene flow, and mutation.

I thought you accepted adaptation? If so, why do you have a problem with natural selection? If any ecological understanding of how nature’s systems work is at all accurate, natural selection and adaptation must occur. You have to discount literally all we know about how ecosystems work if you discount natural selection and adaptation.

remove unfit variants as they arise via mutation. …acts to weed out deleterious alleles,more fit than either of the homozygotes, … light colored moths suffered a higher predation rate. The decline of light colored alleles was caused by light colored individuals being removed from the gene pool (selected against).

Are you highlighting these because you think natural selection is primarily about survival, not reproduction?

If so, I don’t think you understand what “fitness” means in evolutionary context. “It describes the capability of an individual of certain genotype to reproduce, and usually is equal to the proportion of the individual’s genes in all the genes of the next generation. If differences in individual genotypes affect fitness, then the frequencies of the genotypes will change over generations; the genotypes with higher fitness become more common. This process is called natural selection.” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_(biology

As you can see, “fitness” is all and only about reproductive success.

You may have also missed some important things from that article you quoted:
“Dark colored moths had a higher reproductive success…”
“Individual organisms either reproduce or fail to reproduce and are hence the unit of selection. One way alleles can change in frequency is to be housed in organisms with different reproductive rates.”

As you can see, it’s all about reproduction. Elimination due to death can reduce reproductive success, but being able to attract better mates or produce more offspring or nurture more offspring to successful reproduction themselves is also natural selection.

Natural selection favors selfish behavior because any truly altruistic act increases the recipient’s reproductive success while lowering the donors. non- altruists would reap the benefits, but not pay the costs, of altruistic acts.

Here I expect you don’t like that natural selection supposes no true altruism. Well, define “true altruism.” Here, biologists are implying a moral choice to sacrifice one’s self for another. Do animals act on morality?

Tell me, do you think there’s true altruism/morality among animals? Where?

I think we see echoes of the moral makeup of our universe in nature. The “apparent altruism” that biologists speak of is actually a demonstration of how God made altruism, that altruism is good. Does God punish altruism or make evil come of it? No, good begets good, right? So isn’t it only natural that altruism brings about some greater good?

Why yes, it is indeed natural–it’s built into nature!

Have you ever seen March of the Penguins? I cried during that movie because of the beautiful example of altruism God built into nature–and the rewards He built in for it, to encourage it (more successful reproduction). If we had more men in our world who showed the kind of devotion and true “manhood” that those humble penguins show, this world would be a far, far better place!

**Natural selection favors traits or behaviors that increase a genotype’s inclusive fitness. **

What’s the problem, when you understand “fitness” as reproductive success?

Natural selection does not have any foresight.

Of course it wouldn’t. Does gravity have any foresight? Do animals have abstract thought and self-awareness and rationality like we do? Can they tell the future?

That a process does not have any foresight in this strict scientific sense does not mean that God had no foresight in creating it.

Do the laws of physics have foresight in the birth or death of a star? No, but God did when He made those laws and as He sustains them.​

 

[reggieM]

A probability study on speciation:

INTERNAL STRUCTURE OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLE AND POSSIBLE DETERMINISTIC MECHANISM OF BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION Alexey V. Melkikh, (Ural state technical university, Molecular physics chair,) Entropy 2004, 6, 223–232

It was shown that the probability of new species formation by means of random mutations is negligibly small. . . . The problem is that the Darwin mechanism of the evolution (a random process) cannot explain the known rate of the species evolution. In accordance with the very first estimates, the total number of possible combinations of nucleotides in the DNA is about 4^(2×10^9) (because four types of nucleotides are available, while the number of nucleotides in the DNA of higher organisms is about 2×10^9). . . . Thus, finally we have P = 10^57000000. This figure is vanishingly small. Therefore, a conclusion may be drawn that species could not be formed due to random mutations.

The results of any claimed speciation are sub-microscopic in scope, as compared to what has to be shown in order to account for the diversity of life.

No one knows how many species of insects there are on earth. Estimates range from 2 million to 30 million. We’ve found approximately a million insect species already – each with indescribable complexity of features and functions.
This says nothing of species of plants, animals and fish.

Then we look at the claims of “speciation” and see perhaps a couple of cases with flowers, and even those are questionable.

— at this juncture, I wonder if you might be better off discussing science on a webboard dedicated to that topic?

This is supposed to be about the Catholic Faith and not lessons in biology.
I very well know where to get information about Darwinian evolution. There is no shortage of websites on that topic.

If you want to know why I believe evolutionary theory is a serious evil, however, and how it affects the Catholic Faith – I will be glad to discuss that with you.

 

[Arandur]

Whatever is taught in science class is clearly being reconfigured and amplified by all media. The desperate attempt to popularize the evoloution=science=reason=reality idea, to the exclusion of all else, is a problem. Any tool, and science is a tool, can be used for good or ill. By attaching a purely atheist conviction to ‘science’ distorts it to the point where many leading scientists themselves come to believe that the little engine of evolution not only could but did.

We can’t just discount the science, though. We need to show where they are going beyond science and reason and also engage them in the discussion of what scientists have validly found. If we do not, we betray our own pursuit of truth and discredit the Church by acting as if science and faith were in conflict, and as if faith and reason are in conflict.

Even in science programs about life in the universe, scientists tell us water and a certain temperature range will lead to the development of the ‘building blocks of life’ (amino acids), followed by actual life. The problem with that idea is that I should be able to take some inorganic chemicals, put it in a bag, shake, and it should now be filled with life.

Scientists assume this but cannot do it in the lab. This tells me the building blocks of life idea is not true. It cannot be demonstrated.

This is NOT true.
Are you aware of Stanley Miller’s experiments, particularly the Miller-Urey experiment?

"The Miller–Urey experiment[1] (or Urey–Miller experiment)[2] was an experiment that simulated hypothetical conditions thought at the time to be present on the early Earth, and tested for the occurrence of chemical evolution. Specifically, the experiment tested Soviet scientist Alexander Oparin’s and J. B. S. Haldane’s hypothesis that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors. Considered to be the classic experiment on the origin of life, it was conducted in 1952[1] and published in 1953 by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey at the University of Chicago.[3][4][5]

In 2008[6], a re-analysis of Miller’s archived solutions from the original experiments showed 22 amino acids rather than 5 were actually created in one of the apparatus used.[7]"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Miller:
"In 2008, researchers found the apparatus that Miller used in his early experiments and analyzed the material using more sensitive later techniques. The experiments included previously unreported simulations of other environments, such as gases released in volcanic eruptions. The later analysis turned up more amino acids and other compounds of interest.[3][4]

In 1828 Friedrich Wohler had showed that it is possible to synthesize urea. As urea is an organic molecule, many at the time thought it could only be made by living organisms. This led to recognition that there is no obvious difference between a physically produced and an organically produced molecule. Miller’s experiment went slightly further by showing that basic biomolecules can be formed through simple physical processes, and that it was not impossible for the first stages of abiogenesis to have occurred on the early earth."

These are old, old experiments.

While it may be true that the not all of the “building blocks” of life have been created in the lab, it has been shown that many can have been. And in a very short time span. Yet the claims involve much longer timespans than we have been able to reproduce by experiment, and we also don’t know the exact formulas required–just because we haven’t found them yet doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

Anyway, your objection here shows me that you’re really more concerned with the Origin of Life and Abiogenesis debates than with Evolution (which doesn’t act until after there is already life). I haven’t gotten into those, except to agree that the current best explanation for the formation and synthesis of the initial carriers of biological information is from probably rather direct intelligent design, as Dr. Meyer has shown.

 

[Arandur]

“Species” is a name given to various organisms by taxonomists. It is claimed that dogs, wolves, and coyotes are different species. They all can, however, interbreed.

I know of the difficulties in defining species and I often found it frustrating in biology. We’re more concerned with major morphological differences, though, and lack of typical interbreeding in the wild. For instance, a lion and a tiger can interbreed and even produce a fertile hybrid, but they don’t do so normally in the wild, and would you argue that they should be considered the same species?

The only “motive” is survival advantage – and this is not adequate as an explanation.

Why not? It follows exactly the same pattern as many other observed self-organizing systems, like ecological balance, economics, even the development of human ideas. New, more complex things build upon old, filling niches, and are carried on based on their success or adoption in their appropriate environment. This is how all macro systems we know of work. It’s the argument from Summation again, where the evidence for evolution from many other disciplines discretely and independently confirm and build upon each other.

Where is the mathematics proving that there was enough time in the history of the earth to accomplish this task? Where are the probability studies explaining how new vital organs were “created” by mutations (which are mostly destructive). If the only mutations available are on the microscopic level – then where are the fossils showing these massive number of transitions needed to move from bacteria to human?

I don’t have these on hand, but I’ve seen studies into them. Don’t recall much about them right now.

…
Again, this is extremely limited as compared to what has been claimed for the “creative power” of evolution (to produce every life form on the planet).
But for other reasons, I’m not convinced even that much has any meaning.

Look here and tell me what you think of the examples of speciation and the development of major morphological changes and more complex structures:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation
news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html

Again, the attempt to close-off discussions of Origin of Life from the serious problems of evolutionary theory are an indication that there is something to hide. It’s clearly logical and obvious that the origin of life has a massive and profound effect on the claims of evolution.

Evolution only acts upon life once it has begun. As Dr. Meyer points out, our best explanation for the original generation of biological information is intelligent design. For evolutionary processes to work afterwards, all it takes is for that to be built into that biological information.

If I’m not mistaken, this is what Buffalo agrees with, as well–it is biological information and the origin of life that we have evidence of direct intelligent design; evolution as we know it follows from that original design.

So for instance, God planned chemistry and natural laws in such a way that the molecules of DNA could act as they do. He planned and developed those first structures of biological information, creating the first living things. That biological information carries in it inherently the ability to change and reproduce and conform to other external environmental factors and pressures–evolution.

How did it happen that all life forms share the same biological constants?

This is a common argument for common descent.

Where are the non-RNA/DNA forms of life that competed with the surviors that we see today?

I’m not sure what you’re saying here.

 

[Michaelo]

My views do not deserve second class status.

This statement summarizes a key point of misunderstanding that you and others continue to perpetuate. Establishing the distinction between that which is appropriate for science class and that which belongs in philosophy class in no way detracts from the significance of either. Please do not think that some topics are inferior because they ought to be reserved for philosophy class as that’s certainly not true

 

[Arandur]

A probability study on speciation:

I have yet to see a probability study that attempts to take into account the non-random aspects of evolution, such as natural selection. These eliminate random patterns and encourage particular paths. These non-random forces destroy attempts at determining probabilities based on random occurrences. For evolution does not suggest that even a paramecium’s DNA spontaneously generated by a winning random combination of chemicals, much less a multi-celled organism.

It’s like this. Imagine playing poker. You’ve got a 52 card deck. A spades suit royal strait-flush is the rarest combination of cards–particularly rare if you’re playing 5 card stud. But it does happen, given enough occurrences.

Now, imagine you get that spades royal strait-flush, and since it beats out everything else, the game changes to inherently favor the occurrence of a spades royal strait-flush again, at a much higher probability. And the next time it comes up, the probability of it coming up again increases quite a bit yet again.

Now consider every card combination and ranking in poker. Let’s say every hand, whatever turns up, the higher value combinations get increased in their probability of coming up according to their value compared to the other hands (perhaps by increasing the number of those cards in the deck and removing some of the less winning cards in the deck). If this could occur in poker, eventually you’d be getting nothing but the highest value combinations. If it worked by swapping cards in and out, eventually you’d only be left with spades 10’s-Aces, or only with 52 Aces of Spades.

This is somewhat like how evolution works, and why it cannot be evaluated by probability. So I place very little stock in probability comparisons. They’re mostly flashy and for show but use improper assumptions and conclusions invalidating their meaning.

If you want to know why I believe evolutionary theory is a serious evil, however, and how it affects the Catholic Faith – I will be glad to discuss that with you.

I’ve given my explanation of why it’s important that we be careful of how we approach the evolution debate and make all the important distinctions about what is acceptable and why. So long as you make those distinctions and don’t perpetuate the lie of a conflict between science and the faith or between faith and reason, and you remain open to the science, I’m okay with it.

What I want to combat, however, is the sort of blanket opposition to evolution that I see so often, and the lack of making important distinctions, because people who do this hurt evangelization. Doing so propagates misunderstandings about the faith, and I can completely understand why people reject the faith when people of faith seem to blanketly attack what is observable and objectively discovered. For if you undermine what someone can first see by their sense and know by their reason, how can you expect them to belief anything else you have to say?

For me, the evolution debate is a matter of credibility and defense of faith and reason.

 

[edwest2]

Evolution is a product being marketed here and globally. Just like certain software packages come bundled with the latest version of Windows, I usually see evolution bundled with atheism.

And this discussion reminds me entirely of business contract negotiations. The other party keeps asking if I agree with this part and that part and so on, then he says, “Good. Now let us iron out the few remaining points of disagreement and we can have a deal.” No deal here.

In Europe, if a country wants to join the European Union, it’s not just a matter of practical issues, laws and economics. Countries seeking admission must also agree to allow abortion in their country if it is not already allowed.

Evolution is observable? Where? Evangelization is injured when new converts ask, Why did Jesus die for me? They are then told about our first parents, Adam and Eve, who committed Original Sin which is passed down to all of us. Jesus had to die because of Original Sin. Meanwhile, a trip to science class tells them their ancestors were hominids.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Michaelo]

edwest2

You are so entrenched in your preconceived notions on evolution that you are unable to consider what myself and Arandur have repeatedly stated with regards to its compatibility with our faith.

 

[reggieM]

I know of the difficulties in defining species and I often found it frustrating in biology. We’re more concerned with major morphological differences, though, and lack of typical interbreeding in the wild. For instance, a lion and a tiger can interbreed and even produce a fertile hybrid, but they don’t do so normally in the wild, and would you argue that they should be considered the same species?

I really can’t say at the moment. I’d have to research the question more.

Why not?

Here’s why not.

At the pinnacle of biological complexity is the human brain, the most complex structure known to exist in the universe. It contains about 100 billion neurons, each of which has connections to as many as a thousand other neurons. It dwarfs in sophistication any computer ever devised by man. And yet, this brain, with all its astonishing powers—the brain of Mozart, of Einstein, of Shakespeare—evolved from an ape brain in about 5 million years or less.

Considering that massive complexity and power of the human brain is far beyond what is needed for survival alone, the evolutionary story (as it is most commonly given) seems senseless. The incredible variety of organisms itself is proof of this. The fact that bacteria evolved at all is abundant proof. Bacteria exists today just fine. It never needed to become cellular life and populate the world with plants and animals. “Survival advantage” alone is an inadequate motivation.

It follows exactly the same pattern as many other observed self-organizing systems, like ecological balance, economics, even the development of human ideas.

Humans possess an immortal soul which affects all future change and development. This prevents the comparison that you’re making, as I see it.

Look here and tell me what you think of the examples of speciation and the development of major morphological changes and more complex structures:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation
news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html

I appreciate the links, but I don’t think I’ll have the time to read them. I think I’m familiar with the lizard issue (I just read the url) – that alone is evidence against evolution as I see it. The lizards remain as lizards today. I’ve asked you to provide scientific support for the presence of intelligent design in nature – I’d much prefer that you give me those kinds of links to read, since they support your view also.

As Dr. Meyer points out, our best explanation for the original generation of biological information is intelligent design. For evolutionary processes to work afterwards, all it takes is for that to be built into that biological information.

Some see that as something easy to accomplish. I am not one of those. The problems that Dr. Meyer exposes with origin of life issues carry over into evolutionary theory, as I see it.

If I’m not mistaken, this is what Buffalo agrees with, as well–it is biological information and the origin of life that we have evidence of direct intelligent design; evolution as we know it follows from that original design.

If you could provide me with some scientific studies on this matter, I would be very interested. I don’t see the point in trying to prove evolutionary theory to me when it’s more interesting and important to see the scientific evidence that supports your own view on the evidence for design in nature.

So for instance, God planned chemistry and natural laws in such a way that the molecules of DNA could act as they do. He planned and developed those first structures of biological information, creating the first living things. That biological information carries in it inherently the ability to change and reproduce and conform to other external environmental factors and pressures–evolution.

Those are good assertions – certainly better than what I normally see presented as the explanation for life. I don’t know if what you say is true or not. I do not believe that random forces and physical laws alone can produce the diversity of life. If DNA was designed to possess the self-organizing powers to multiply and create new organisms, that would be a refutation of mainstream evolutionary theory in itself since it would be necessary (not just a nice philosophical option) to reference God (or some intelligence beyond nature alone) to explain the origin of the species and the diversity of life.

 

[reggieM]

Evolution is observable? Where? Evangelization is injured when new converts ask, Why did Jesus die for me? They are then told about our first parents, Adam and Eve, who committed Original Sin which is passed down to all of us. Jesus had to die because of Original Sin. Meanwhile, a trip to science class tells them their ancestors were hominids.

Very true. Evangelization is damaged and comes to a complete halt when the Faith is compromised by materialistic ideas. The claims of evolutionary theory are seductive – but they lack substance. The entire diversity of God’s creation is credited to the creative power of mutations.

But we might wonder if the same people who make those claims would want a mutation in their eyes, for example. I wouldn’t think so because those mutations almost always cause blindness and never cause a doubling of the power of sight.

We’ve recently seen some major conversions to theism – and the cause that moved them to God was a skepticism about evolutionary claims.

I have never seen the opposite – an atheist who becomes convinced about evolution and for that reason becomes a believer. Evolution and loss of faith go together like hand and glove. Darwin built his theory to distance nature from God – so the results are predictable and evident. People swallow evolutionary errors without thinking. And the legitimate criticisms of the theory are silenced.

 

[reggieM]

So long as you make those distinctions and don’t perpetuate the lie of a conflict between science and the faith or between faith and reason, and you remain open to the science, I’m okay with it.

I have never seen any of the critics of evolution here on CAF ever oppose legitimate science, or certainly never condemn science as a field of study. I have seen pointed and accurate criticisms of scientism, or today’s scientific-culture itsef.

This is almost always misinterpreted as an “attack on science” or a condemnation of “all scientists”.

So, I do agree with you – it’s essential to make distinctions. But that warning needs to go both ways.