The earth is only 6000 years old (II)

[edwest2]

To itinerant1:

I’ll just let Pope Benedict speak for himself:

bringyou.to/apologetics/p81.htm

Pope Benedict XVI

Monod nonetheless finds the possibility for evolution in the fact that in the very propagation of the project there can be mistakes in the act of transmission. Because nature is conservative, these mistakes, once having come into existence, are carried on. Such mistakes can add up, and from the adding up of mistakes something new can arise. Now an astonishing conclusion follows: It was in this way that the whole world of living creatures, and human beings themselves, came into existence. We are the product of “haphazard mistakes.”

What response shall we make to this view? It is the affair of the natural sciences to explain how the tree of life in particular continues to grow and how new branches shoot out from it. This is not a matter for faith. But we must have the audacity to say that the great projects of the living creation are not the products of chance and error. Nor are they the products of a selective process to which divine predicates can be attributed in illogical, unscientific, and even mythic fashion. The great projects of the living creation point to a creating Reason and show us a creating Intelligence, and they do so more luminously and radiantly today than ever before. Thus we can say today with a new certitude and joyousness that the human being is indeed a divine project, which only the creating Intelligence was strong and great and audacious enough to conceive of. Human beings are not a mistake but something willed; they are the fruit of love. They can disclose in themselves, in the bold project that they are, the language of the creating Intelligence that speaks to them and that moves them to say: Yes, Father, you have willed me."

Catholics must have the audacity to say, along with the Holy Father, “that the great projects of the living creation are not the products of chance and error.”

God bless,
Ed

---

Choose Jesus.

 

[grannymh]

“proven” isn’t the issue with most science

and the Pope does not deny the evidence for common ancestry and evolution. He, in fact, has marveled at it!

The process (change in allele frequencies in a reproductive population) is observed every day in the laboratory

What Pope mentioned what evidence for which common ancestry?

Citation please. Or is this the same misinformation mentioned earlier?

 

[grannymh]

I seriously doubt that you agree with the pope since he is not a “creationist” and he does not endorse YEC by any means… Furthermore, the popular media article you have a penchant for quoting does not adequately reflect the pope’s thinking on evolution.

Furthermore, I am not certain that the quote is completely accurate since Pope Benedict has certainly shown himself as accepting of a conservative theory evolution as proven scientifically. That is why Pope Benedict has said that it is not a matter of “creation or evolution.”

I’m sure you don’t get it, but I’m very sorry to say, I am writing this not so much for you, but for those on CAF who have an open mind, are willing to learn, and can think objectively.

Also, Pope Benedict has been actively involved in promoting the natural sciences. It is only science by itself, to the exclusion of sound philosophy and theology that narrows one’s vision. That does not appear to be your attitude at all since you believe “creation science” is the true science, even though it is not science at all.

You have put your spin on this entire matter countless times. It does get tiresome for many of us on CAF to repeatedly read your illogical creationist canards.

On another note, your narrow view of God’s involvement with creation, reflected by your “unqualified” statement that “God acts directly” reveals an almost superstitious concept of God. Or, at best one can say that it is a Pat Robertson type of primitive view of the Creator.

If God “only” acts directly, that makes God out to be the cause of evil. And that is heresy. Pat Robertson said God caused the Haitian earthquake as a punishment to today’s Haitians for the the alleged “pact with the devil” that Haitians made an entire two centuries ago when they very brutally overthrew their French enslavers.

If God only acts directly in creation then He is responsible for causing hemophiliacs disease, immune system disorders, Down syndrome and a host of other evils. Such a view of God would have shocked Professor Jerome Lejune, the Catholic geneticist who discovered the genetic cause of Down syndrome.

Your particular conception of God is very much like that shared by ID theorists. If God directly designed IC and SCI systems then God is responsible for some poor designs as well as the failure of such systems in individuals suffering from blood clotting malfunctions, immune system disorders, and so on ad infinitum.

In sum, the God you are trying to defend is not the God of St. Thomas Aquinas or the God of the Catholic Church. Furthermore, you are not even defending the Bible. You are defending, rather, the creationist/fundamentalist skewed manner of interpreting the Bible.

Without doubt, materialist theories of evolution are wrong. But that does not mean your position is right. Somehow you seem to think that since materialism is wrong then you are right. That kind of thinking involves an egregious logical fallacy.

Fr. Stanley L. Jaki described this problem with exceptional accuracy when he said,

“The conflict [between science and religion] arises from the clash of two extremist camps, both dedicated to a noble aim and bringing alike discredit to it. The creationists aim at a restoration of the sense of [purposeful] existence through impregnating young people’s mind with the biblical creation story, which they expose to ridicule by taking literally all its statements. Their antagonists want to secure the sacred rights of scientific investigation, which they equate with materialism, a claim as ridiculous as it is erosive of all purpose.”

I have nothing more to add to Fr. Jaki’s most accurate characterization of the situation.

1. People in general need to review the Catholic teaching about the effects of Original Sin.
2. In general, evolutionary theories do not address abiogenesis. When they have done so, there has been a potpourri of non-conclusive ideas. Thus, it is safe to say that materialistic theories of evolution can apply to plants and non-rational animals. Materialistic evolution can only attempt to apply to the human anatomy which decomposes. It cannot apply to the true, fully complete human nature because this consists of spirit/matter, soul and body.

Blessings,
granny

All human life, young and old, are worthy of reverence.

 

[itinerant1]

1. People in general need to review the Catholic teaching about the effects of Original Sin.
2. In general, evolutionary theories do not address abiogenesis. When they have done so, there has been a potpourri of non-conclusive ideas. Thus, it is safe to say that materialistic theories of evolution can apply to plants and non-rational animals. Materialistic evolution can only attempt to apply to the human anatomy which decomposes. It cannot apply to the true, fully complete human nature because this consists of spirit/matter, soul and body.

Blessings,
granny

All human life, young and old, are worthy of reverence.

Nay! We went over this before, but perhaps you have forgotten. A materialist theory of evolution is unacceptable even in regard to the evolution of plants and animals. The “materialist” in materialist evolution is a “philosophical” position about the nature of reality that denies the existence of metaphysical causes such as formal and final causes.

Perhaps you are mistakenly thinking that since plants and animals are physical beings then a materialist theory of their evolution can be an acceptable explanation. However, materialist evolution theory involves a philosophical materialism or ideology, often referred to as “philosophical naturalism”, grafted on to the science. Philosophical naturalism denies the existence of formal causes, purpose or final causes in nature, even though these causes are evident in regard to the origin of plants and animals.

I don’t think you want to continue promoting philosophical naturalism. That would make grannymh a heretic.

 

[itinerant1]

As was evident from Pope Benedict’s Book “In the Beginning…”, he is a supporter of theistic evolution theory. Nowhere, do we find Benedict endorsing “creationism” or ID Theory.

Pope Benedict continues his support of evolution theory in Creation and Evolution: A Conference With Pope Benedict XVI in Castel Gandolfo

He says, “the question is not to either make a decision for a creationism that fundamentally excludes science, or for an evolutionary theory that covers over its own gaps and does not want to see the questions that reach beyond the methodological possibilities of natural science,” and that “I find it important to underline that the theory of evolution implies questions that must be assigned to philosophy and which themselves lead beyond the realms of science.”

As can be seen, the pope finds “creationism” unacceptable because “it fundamentally excludes science.”

Commenting on statements by his predecessor, Pope Benedict writes that “it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.” He notes that experiments in a controlled environment were limited as “we cannot haul 10,000 generations into the laboratory.” Benedict’s personal evaluation of evolution science does not entail, by any stretch of the imagination, any sort of approval for creationism or ID theory.

Pope Benedict defends theistic evolution, the reconciliation between science and religion. In discussing evolution, he writes that “The process itself is rational despite the mistakes and confusion as it goes through a narrow corridor choosing a few positive mutations and using low probability…This…inevitably leads to a question that goes beyond science…where did this rationality come from?” to which he answers that it comes from the “creative reason” of God.

 

[grannymh]

Nay! We went over this before, but perhaps you have forgotten. A materialist theory of evolution is unacceptable even in regard to the evolution of plants and animals. The “materialist” in materialist evolution is a “philosophical” position about the nature of reality that denies the existence of metaphysical causes such as formal and final causes.

Going from the simple to the complex [scientific realm to promoting philosophical naturalism] is why I, as a student mandated to take philosophy, never got into the discussions as to how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. Years back, This Rock printed my letter to the editor on this topic.

First, post 619 contained very simple concepts based on science by definition, not the philosophy or philosophies which underpin a worldview which includes science. It is addressed to the general readership, some of whom are struggling with the issues of science. If you wish further thoughts on this, I would be happy to repeat information from earlier posts dedicated to the defense of the two sole parents of the human species.

Perhaps you are mistakenly thinking that since plants and animals are physical beings then a materialist theory of their evolution can be an acceptable explanation.

My thinking that plants and animals are physical beings is intentional.

However, materialist evolution theory involves a philosophical materialism or ideology, often referred to as “philosophical naturalism”, grafted on to the science. Philosophical naturalism denies the existence of formal causes, purpose or final causes in nature, even though these causes are evident in regard to the origin of plants and animals.

Second, post 619 stayed with a basic theory because it is important to lay solid ground before going into detailed philosophical discussions.

Third, post 619 actually was a lead-in to the philosophical or theological concepts of human nature.

I don’t think you want to continue promoting philosophical naturalism. That would make grannymh a heretic.

Fourth, if a discussion on philosophical worldviews is intended, then please start a thread. One of my professors used the semester to demonstrate the philosophical line from Descartes to Communism. I passed the course even though I spaced out the philosophers who seemed so confused about existence that they couldn’t figure out if they actually existed or if they existed in someone else’s imagination. (That is a slight exaggeration.) Thus I may need to catch up in order to contribute – but that would be both a challenge and a joy.

Blessings,
granny

Genesis 1:1

 

[Philipp]

So you observed natural selection working on random mutations to create a new species?

And you can prove that the mutations were random? That is, after all, what your theory says. And it’s the key difference between your theory and mine.

And BTW - I’m not a creationist if by that term you mean “believes that all species were created 6000 years ago exactly as they are now.”

I think that Dr. Maciej Giertych’s remarks below to a previous post by Rossum can be used to answer both Ricmat’s above comments to Rossum and of course to Rossum’s comment below:

ROSSUM from a previous post: *My thinks to Dr Giertych and to Philipp for an interesting reply. On a minor point. I believe that the original couple moved to Limone-sul-Garda from Milan, hence the “Milano” in the name of the mutation.

Quite how Dr Giertych finds that a mutation “associated with lower incidence of artheriosclerosis” can be described as “neutral” escapes me. I take his point about the lack of homozygotes, but in the current situation the mutation must be described as beneficial. As always, it is necessary to consider the environment when considering “beneficial” or “deleterious”. White fur is beneficial in the Arctic but deleterious in many other environments. As presently found, Apo A-I Milano is a beneficial mutation.*

**DR. MACIEJ GIERTYCH OF POLAND’S RESPONSE TO ROSSUM:**1)

***1) If I understand the conclusion of the paper the lower incidence of artheriosclerosis in the village is not attributable to the AIM variant.

1.  The existence of variation is not questioned. The dependence of variation on environment is not questioned. That is the beauty of there being variants that various environmental niches can be populated. This is what we observe today in population studies, in how races form. You are welcome to call albino fur beneficial in the Arctic and detrimental in temperate climate. But where do you see evolution in this? What the evolutionists must demonstrate is a mutation that leads to new functions or organs. Work on mutagenesis has not provided that yet, and generally interest in that field of research is declining rapidly.

2.  This information about the original couple being from Milan is interesting. It is not in the paper – possibly in some earlier papers on the variant. Perhaps it occurs in other people in Milan and in other places also. To claim that it is a mutation you would have to show that it is absent in the parents of a carrier.

Sincerely, Maciej***

 

[itinerant1]

First, post 619 contained very simple concepts based on science by definition, not the philosophy or philosophies which underpin a worldview which includes science. It is addressed to the general readership, some of whom are struggling with the issues of science. If you wish further thoughts on this, I would be happy to repeat information from earlier posts dedicated to the defense of the two sole parents of the human species.

I posed no question about Adam and Eve, nor addressed in any way the subject of primal parents.

However, when you refer to “materialistic theories of evolution” that is a philosophical reference; it is by no means a strictly scientific expression. If you intended the phrase in some other way than its common usage and obvious meaning, then you necessarily confuse the general reader and everyone else as to what you are talking about.

 

[grannymh]

As was evident from Pope Benedict’s Book “In the Beginning…”, he is a supporter of theistic evolution theory. Nowhere, do we find Benedict endorsing “creationism” or ID Theory.

Pope Benedict continues his support of evolution theory in Creation and Evolution: A Conference With Pope Benedict XVI in Castel Gandolfo

He says, “the question is not to either make a decision for a creationism that fundamentally excludes science, or for an evolutionary theory that covers over its own gaps and does not want to see the questions that reach beyond the methodological possibilities of natural science,” and that “I find it important to underline that the theory of evolution implies questions that must be assigned to philosophy and which themselves lead beyond the realms of science.”

As can be seen, the pope finds “creationism” unacceptable because “it fundamentally excludes science.”

Commenting on statements by his predecessor, Pope Benedict writes that “it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.” He notes that experiments in a controlled environment were limited as “we cannot haul 10,000 generations into the laboratory.” Benedict’s personal evaluation of evolution science does not entail, by any stretch of the imagination, any sort of approval for creationism or ID theory.

Pope Benedict defends theistic evolution, the reconciliation between science and religion. In discussing evolution, he writes that “The process itself is rational despite the mistakes and confusion as it goes through a narrow corridor choosing a few positive mutations and using low probability…This…inevitably leads to a question that goes beyond science…where did this rationality come from?” to which he answers that it comes from the “creative reason” of God.

Does Pope Benedict XVI specifically put creationism and ID as equals in the same category? Yes, I know I have to read the whole book. However, from the above quotes, it does not look as if Pope Benedict XVI considers creationism and ID as equal or interchangeable theories.

I did notice that Pope Benedict XVI, according to the chosen quote, qualifies creationism. In my humble opinion, this qualification does not automatically take some of the principles of ID off the table.

Does St. Thomas automatically exclude science when explaining the creation of the earth/universe? Or to borrow a phrase from the quote above, does St. Thomas’ teaching fundamentally excludes science?

Blessings,
granny

The search for truth can take strange paths.

 

[edwest2]

granny -

The goal of some posts here is to deny any sort of creationism or any sort of reference to Intelligent Design. I suggest you pick up the book, Signature in the Cell. You will learn:

A) Scientists have no credible theory that demonstrates how life may have arisen. They want all of us to assume that life arose spontaneously, and will always arise spontaneously given the “right” conditions. But they have no way of showing that is true or even possible.

B) Scientists are unable to create DNA or RNA from scratch in the lab. All this talk about chemicals and natural laws has not led to the creation of either in the lab.

C) Long ages are required to allow evolution the time it needs to do whatever it does. An early age for the earth and/or the universe would throw a serious monkey wrench into the whole idea. There is some evidence that the ages of fossils and the distances of objects in the universe are wrong. However, this cannot be presented as even vaguely possible since long ages are required.

Hope this helps,
Ed

---

Choose Jesus.

 

[Philipp]

1. People in general need to review the Catholic teaching about the effects of Original Sin.
2. In general, evolutionary theories do not address abiogenesis. When they have done so, there has been a potpourri of non-conclusive ideas. Thus, it is safe to say that materialistic theories of evolution can apply to plants and non-rational animals. Materialistic evolution can only attempt to apply to the human anatomy which decomposes. It cannot apply to the true, fully complete human nature because this consists of spirit/matter, soul and body.

Blessings,
granny

All human life, young and old, are worthy of reverence.

When one reviews original sin in light of Genesis 1-11 how does death fit into the picture before Adam?

One such Internet link seems worthy of reading: rtforum.org/lt/lt37.html

From that link: Pope Pius XII touched brilliantly on the question of historical science versus evolutionary theory in Humani Generis in 1950 where he pointed out concerning the alleged “fact” of the biological evolution of man:

For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions on the part of men experienced in both fields take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, inasfar as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith. Some, however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.4

 

[grannymh]

I posed no question about Adam and Eve, nor addressed in any way the subject of primal parents.

Of course you didn’t. I was simply offering you a way to expand your thinking.

However, when you refer to “materialistic theories of evolution” that is a philosophical reference; it is by no means a strictly scientific expression.

In the real world, or in the trenches as we older folks would say, The both / and way of looking at topics works a lot better than the mutually exclusive or. This also permits one to understand the other person’s position.

If you intended the phrase in some other way than its common usage and obvious meaning, then you necessarily confuse the general reader and everyone else as to what you are talking about.

The common usage you refer to depends on which side of the street one lives.

That being said, you have presented some valid points. Now I understand why some Thomists have problems understanding the position of some ID proponents. Please note that I used the word “some” twice.

Blessings,
granny

These two websites contain TV ads about Catholicism. The first is from one of the Dioceses which is using them. The second is general information.

 

[rossum]

What the evolutionists must demonstrate is a mutation that leads to new functions or organs.

Firstly I disagree that evolutionists have to show this. Evolution is the change in allele frequescies in a population over time. That has been repeatedly demonstrated.

Our previous discussion has been about the existence of beneficial mutations. This new request appears to be another shifting of the goalposts. However that may be, we do have the necessary evidence; experiments have indeed shown new functions evolving. I am sure that Dr Giertych is already aware of the nylonase mutations which allowed a bacterium to evolve the new function of digesting a chemical which it had not previously been able to digest: Ohno S (April 1984). “Birth of a unique enzyme from an alternative reading frame of the preexisted, internally repetitious coding sequence”. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 81 (8): 2421–5. doi:10.1073/pnas.81.8.2421. PMID 6585807. PMC 345072.

I can also cite Dr Lenski’s recent work on the evolution of a new function in E. coli: Blount, Borland, Lenski (2008). “Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105 (23): 7899–7906. doi:10.1073/pnas.0803151105

In Lenski’s case he has preserved the original populations and has sequenced them and so can show what mutations happened and in what generations they happened.

The ability to digest a previously undigestible chemical is a “new function”. I could also cite the ability to resist antibiotics or insecticides as a “new function” and thare are all too many examples of those.

This information about the original couple being from Milan is interesting. It is not in the paper – possibly in some earlier papers on the variant. Perhaps it occurs in other people in Milan and in other places also. To claim that it is a mutation you would have to show that it is absent in the parents of a carrier.

I am not claiming it is a new mutation, it is a historical mutation that has been passed on as a rare allele in the population. A search through the population of Milan would indeed be interesting, though I am not aware of any work to this end. It is possible that the same mutation has happened elsewhere, given the number of mutations in the average human and the population of humans then such an event must be possible. There is at least one other known mutation in the same gene, the A-I Paris mutation, see Klon (2000). “Molecular Belt Models for the Apolipoprotein A-I Paris and Milano Mutations”. Biophysical Journal, Volume 79, Issue 3, Pages 1679-1685.

To refer back briefly to Dr Giertych’s point about the lack of human homozygotes for the Apolipoprotein A-I Milano allele, I have noticed a paper indicating that mouse homozygotes for the human allele appear to have no major problems: Franceschini G, Calabresi L, Chiesa G, Parolini C, Sirtori CR, Canavesi M, Bernini F. (1999) “Increased Cholesterol Efflux Potential of Sera From ApoA-IMilano Carriers and Transgenic Mice.” Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 19, 1257-62.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

Does Pope Benedict XVI specifically put creationism and ID as equals in the same category? Yes, I know I have to read the whole book. However, from the above quotes, it does not look as if Pope Benedict XVI considers creationism and ID as equal or interchangeable theories.

I did notice that Pope Benedict XVI, according to the chosen quote, qualifies creationism. In my humble opinion, this qualification does not automatically take some of the principles of ID off the table.

Does St. Thomas automatically exclude science when explaining the creation of the earth/universe? Or to borrow a phrase from the quote above, does St. Thomas’ teaching fundamentally excludes science?

Blessings,
granny

The search for truth can take strange paths.

Here is the Amazon summary of the book:
**Creation and Evolution: A Conference With Pope Benedict XVI in Castel Gandolfo **

Product Description

  In 2005 the Archbishop of Vienna, Christoph Cardinal Schönborn wrote a  guest editorial in *The New York Times* that sparked a worldwide  debate about "Creation and Evolution". Pope Benedict XVI instructed the  Cardinal to study more closely this problem and the current debate  between "evolutionism" and "creationism," and asked the yearly gathering  of his former students to address these questions.    Even after  Joseph Ratzinger became Pope Benedict XVI, he has continued to maintain  close contact with the circle of his former students. The "study circle"  *(Schulerkrers)* meets once a year with Pope Benedict XVI for a  conference. Many of these former Ratzinger students have gone on to  become acclaimed scholars, professors and writers, as well as high  ranking Church prelates.

This book documents the proceedings of the remarkable conference on the topic of “Creation and Evolution” hosted by Pope Benedict XVI in 2006 at the papal summer residence, Castel Gandolfo. It includes papers that were presented from the fields of natural science, philosophy and theology, and records the subsequent discussion, in which Pope Benedict XVI himself participated.

"Ultimately it comes down to the alternative: What came first?  **Creative  Reason, the Creator Spirit who makes all things and gives them growth,  or Unreason, which, lacking any meaning, strangely enough brings forth a  mathematically ordered cosmos, as well as man and his reason. The  latter, however, would then be nothing more than a chance result of  evolution and thus, in the end, equally meaningless. As Christians, we  say: I believe in God the Father, the Creator of heaven and earth.  I  believe in the Creator Spirit.  We believe that at the beginning of  everything is the eternal Word, with Reason and not Unreason."     **

– Pope Benedict XVI
"Creation and Evolution is an extraordinary opportunity for the public to listen in on the conversation as some of the greatest minds in the Catholic Church – theologians, philosophers, scientists, and Pope Benedict himself – wrestle with one of the most thorny and far-reaching of topics. Participants clash repeatedly over what we really know about the forces that shaped life on earth, over what is data and what is hype, over what certain scenarios might mean even if they were true. I recommend it to anyone who wants to know where we might have come from and where we might be headed.
** – Michael J. Behe**, Lehigh University, Author of The Edge of Evolution
“At a time when evolution is the subject of so many bitter polemics, it is refreshing to see theologians and scientists together to engage in respectful, informed, and thoughtful discussion of it.”
** – Stephen M. Barr**, professor of Theoretical Physics, University of Delaware, and author of * Modern Physics and Ancient Faith.

---

*Me thinks the Pope might like IDvolution. What say you?

 

[grannymh]

When one reviews original sin in light of Genesis 1-11 how does death fit into the picture before Adam?

When I posted “People in general need to review the Catholic teaching about the effects of Original Sin”, I considered that “Catholic teaching” would that which is found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 374 - 421. The footnotes will refer back to Genesis in addition to other sources.

Personally, I stay out of discussions regarding the concept of death in the pre-historic world.

Blessings,
granny

Link to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition: www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[buffalo]

Firstly I disagree that evolutionists have to show this. Evolution is the change in allele frequescies in a population over time. That has been repeatedly demonstrated.

Our previous discussion has been about the existence of beneficial mutations. This new request appears to be another shifting of the goalposts. However that may be, we do have the necessary evidence; experiments have indeed shown new functions evolving. I am sure that Dr Giertych is already aware of the nylonase mutations which allowed a bacterium to evolve the new function of digesting a chemical which it had not previously been able to digest: Ohno S (April 1984). “Birth of a unique enzyme from an alternative reading frame of the preexisted, internally repetitious coding sequence”. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 81 (8): 2421–5. doi:10.1073/pnas.81.8.2421. PMID 6585807. PMC 345072.

I can also cite Dr Lenski’s recent work on the evolution of a new function in E. coli: Blount, Borland, Lenski (2008). “Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105 (23): 7899–7906. doi:10.1073/pnas.0803151105

In Lenski’s case he has preserved the original populations and has sequenced them and so can show what mutations happened and in what generations they happened.

The ability to digest a previously undigestible chemical is a “new function”. I could also cite the ability to resist antibiotics or insecticides as a “new function” and thare are all too many examples of those.

I am not claiming it is a new mutation, it is a historical mutation that has been passed on as a rare allele in the population. A search through the population of Milan would indeed be interesting, though I am not aware of any work to this end. It is possible that the same mutation has happened elsewhere, given the number of mutations in the average human and the population of humans then such an event must be possible. There is at least one other known mutation in the same gene, the A-I Paris mutation, see Klon (2000). “Molecular Belt Models for the Apolipoprotein A-I Paris and Milano Mutations”. Biophysical Journal, Volume 79, Issue 3, Pages 1679-1685.

To refer back briefly to Dr Giertych’s point about the lack of human homozygotes for the Apolipoprotein A-I Milano allele, I have noticed a paper indicating that mouse homozygotes for the human allele appear to have no major problems: Franceschini G, Calabresi L, Chiesa G, Parolini C, Sirtori CR, Canavesi M, Bernini F. (1999) “Increased Cholesterol Efflux Potential of Sera From ApoA-IMilano Carriers and Transgenic Mice.” Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 19, 1257-62.

rossum

Bacteria had the capability to digest nylonase. It was in their memory, if you will. It is spread rapidly in the population through lateral transfer. I have previously posted the links.

 

[grannymh]

Here is the Amazon summary of the book:
**Creation and Evolution: A Conference With Pope Benedict XVI in Castel Gandolfo **

Product Description

In 2005 the Archbishop of Vienna, Christoph Cardinal Schönborn wrote a guest editorial in The New York Times that sparked a worldwide debate about “Creation and Evolution”. Pope Benedict XVI instructed the Cardinal to study more closely this problem and the current debate between “evolutionism” and “creationism,” and asked the yearly gathering of his former students to address these questions. Even after Joseph Ratzinger became Pope Benedict XVI, he has continued to maintain close contact with the circle of his former students. The “study circle” (Schulerkrers) meets once a year with Pope Benedict XVI for a conference. Many of these former Ratzinger students have gone on to become acclaimed scholars, professors and writers, as well as high ranking Church prelates.
This book documents the proceedings of the remarkable conference on the topic of “Creation and Evolution” hosted by Pope Benedict XVI in 2006 at the papal summer residence, Castel Gandolfo. It includes papers that were presented from the fields of natural science, philosophy and theology, and records the subsequent discussion, in which Pope Benedict XVI himself participated.

“Ultimately it comes down to the alternative: What came first? **Creative Reason, the Creator Spirit who makes all things and gives them growth, or Unreason, which, lacking any meaning, strangely enough brings forth a mathematically ordered cosmos, as well as man and his reason. The latter, however, would then be nothing more than a chance result of evolution and thus, in the end, equally meaningless. As Christians, we say: I believe in God the Father, the Creator of heaven and earth. I believe in the Creator Spirit. We believe that at the beginning of everything is the eternal Word, with Reason and not Unreason.” **
– Pope Benedict XVI
"Creation and Evolution is an extraordinary opportunity for the public to listen in on the conversation as some of the greatest minds in the Catholic Church – theologians, philosophers, scientists, and Pope Benedict himself – wrestle with one of the most thorny and far-reaching of topics. Participants clash repeatedly over what we really know about the forces that shaped life on earth, over what is data and what is hype, over what certain scenarios might mean even if they were true. I recommend it to anyone who wants to know where we might have come from and where we might be headed.
– Michael J. Behe, Lehigh University, Author of The Edge of Evolution
“At a time when evolution is the subject of so many bitter polemics, it is refreshing to see theologians and scientists together to engage in respectful, informed, and thoughtful discussion of it.”
– Stephen M. Barr, professor of Theoretical Physics, University of Delaware, and author of Modern Physics and Ancient Faith.

_______________________

Me thinks the Pope might like IDvolution. What say you?

:clapping:

Speaking as a former writer/assistant editor, me thinks that synthesis and synergy have to be emphasized up front in order to bring out the good of all that is involved.

 

[rossum]

Bacteria had the capability to digest nylonase. It was in their memory, if you will. It is spread rapidly in the population through lateral transfer. I have previously posted the links.

References please. I have no problem with lateral transfer, it is the presence of nylonase in ‘bacterial memory’ that I require the reference for. I have never seen a reference for such a topic.

I also should point out the nylonase is an enzyme produced by the bacteria that enable them to digest nylon oligomers, a by-product of the manufacture of nylon. These oligomers are not found in nature.

rossum

 

[edwest2]

I have posted previously that bacteria found in dirt in Canada were found to already be resistant to some natural and manmade antibiotics. I think bacteria have defensive mechanisms that are not fully understood in that regard.

God bless,
Ed

 

[rossum]

I have posted previously that bacteria found in dirt in Canada were found to already be resistant to some natural and manmade antibiotics. I think bacteria have defensive mechanisms that are not fully understood in that regard.

That is a prediction of evolution, and a natural example of the Luria–Delbrück experiment. Mutations are random and hence they will appear whether or not the organism ‘needs’ them at the time.

If mutations were directed then ‘unneeded’ mutations would not appear.

rossum