Transitional Fossils and the Theory of Evolution in relation to Genesis Accounts

[Buzzard3]

DNA does no such thing, as far as I’m aware. There are actually studies which have shown genes activating after bodily death in animals. DNA does eventually decompose, but certain materials like bones preserve it pretty well.

Okay, thanks for that. Fascinating stuff.

 

[Buzzard3]

Let me see…

There was invariably inorganic matter a few billion years ago (limiting ourselves to this planet). And we now have life. So…at some point in the past something happened, some process took place, that organised inorganic matter into matter that had the characteristics of life.

Now a few of us posting don’t believe in God so we’d say that the process must have been entirely natural. That is, with no divine intervention. You believe in God so you would say that He was involved in that process.

Now as to what that specific process was, we don’t yet know (well, unless you think it was all as per Genesis). We know how He organised the process right from the beginning of this universe up to the point where life appeared. We’ve worked that out. But non-life to life is a lot more difficult.

But if you want to say that God did it then everyone would be happy with that. Not that we’d all agree, but this is a Catholic forum. What else should one expect?

Now the $64,000 question is: Do you object to the search for the answer as to how the process worked?

I would describe searching for the answer to how life arose from inanimate matter as “Science for Space Cadets”. You’d think such scientists could think of something useful to do, instead of wasting their time chasing fairies at the bottom of the garden.

Life arose from mud all by itself - that’s so funny!

 

[Anrakyr]

Life arose from mud all by itself - that’s so funny!

Why? Because the God that created the laws of physics that would lead to the chain of events resulting in life diminishes that godhood?

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

One would think that expands and highlights it.

 

[Freddy]

Life arose from mud all by itself - that’s so funny!

There would appear to be two options as to abiogenesis when it comes to God. Either He set up the initial system so that life would emerge as part of that process - in which case it’s entirely reasonable to search for the mechanisms of that process. Or it was not a natural process but a supernatural one.

The phrase ‘we don’t know’ is becoming a constant in this discussion. And for good reason. We really don’t know how it occured (unless one reads the bible literally and is convinced that it was a supernatural event).

So what would you have us do? Listen to the literalists and stop looking or continue a scientific search for how God did it?

Your call…

 

[PickyPicky]

Oh, more than a pure appeal to authority, the first principle of philosophy require the same.

The first principles constrain speculation to reasonable claims. Not all that can be imagined is reasonable

Well, I’m not complaining about appeals to authority: I’m no scientist, so in this discussion I am in no position to complain.

I am merely pointing out that your demand for arguments based on experience, not speculation, leaves you in an awkward place since both philosophy and the Catechism are on the “speculation” side of that divide.

In any case, speculation is, of course, part of the scientific process.

 

[rossum]

Which part of Bechly’s article - “The Demise of the Artifact Hypothesis” - is as you say (in post 244), “not science”?

The Bechley article The Demise of the Artifact Hypothesis you linked to was not from a peer-reviewed paper, it was a news article. Hence is does not require a scientific refutation because it was not science to start with. Science is found in peer-reviewed papers published in scientific journals or on some websites. A second-hand report on a news website is not science. Science is done in the original papers, not in news reports.

If you want to see what a science paper, as opposed to a news report, looks like, read Mitochondrial genes support a common origin of rodent malaria parasites and Plasmodium falciparum’s relatives infecting great apes as an example.

You can easily see that the contents are in a very different style and presented very differently. That is how science looks.

How does DNA prove that birds evolved from reptiles via a natural process?

You say “prove”. Science does not do that. Science says “this is most likely what happened”. All scientific knowledge is provisional because in the future we might discover something new that changes things. To disprove a natural process, you will need to show evidence of some non-natural process existing. Science has a lot of evidence of natural processes operating. It does not currently have evidence of any non-natural processes operating, and hence no evidence that non-natural processes can affect DNA.

Science works from evidence, not speculation; where is your evidence?

 

[o_mlly]

In any case, speculation is, of course, part of the scientific process.

Gotta go with Rossum’s Rule on this …

Science works from evidence, not speculation; where is your evidence?

The proper discipline for speculation is philosophy precisely because its first principles constrain one from posting pure imaginations as speculations, e.g., that life came from non-life, that non-sentient beings produced sentient ones, that unintelligent beings produced intelligent ones, etc.

I don’t believe life was created from nothing. Everything that created life was already in existence, assembled by God.

What do you mean by “assembled”? Do you mean He merely shuffled around existing matter in a clever way beyond what random mutations could ever do?

 

[PickyPicky]

Gotta go with Rossum’s Rule on this

Well @Rossum is wrong on this. A scientist notes some phenomenon requiring explanation, speculates on possible explanations, forms a likely hypothesis, tests it against evidence.

pure imaginations […] e.g, that life came from non-life, that non-sentient beings produced sentient ones, that unintelligent beings produced intelligent ones, etc

Those are exactly the sort of speculations a scientist might have, and which might begin the process of forming a theory.

 

[Kaninchen]

Well @Rossum is wrong on this. A scientist notes some phenomenon requiring explanation, speculates on possible explanations, forms a likely hypothesis, tests it against evidence.

It’s clear from the previous paragraph to that quoted that Rossum was talking about evidence being the test part of the process.

 

[PickyPicky]

It’s clear from the previous paragraph to that quoted that Rossum was talking about evidence being the test part of the process

Yeah, but I don’t often get the opportunity to say “Rossum’s wrong”.

 

[Kaninchen]

Yeah, but I don’t often get the opportunity to say “Rossum’s wrong”.

I don’t normally read the ‘evolution’ threads but, from experience in the distant past of CAF, you’re right there.

 

[o_mlly]

o_mlly:

Gotta go with Rossum’s Rule on this

Well @Rossum is wrong on this. A scientist notes some phenomenon requiring explanation, speculates on possible explanations, forms a likely hypothesis, tests it against evidence.

The step from an intuited imagination to a “likely” hypothesis requires evidence. The more Indirect the evidence, the less likely the hypothesis. Any hypothesis that claims beings evolved faculties not present in their progenitors violate the principle of sufficient reason.

 

[PickyPicky]

Any hypothesis that claims beings evolved faculties not present in their progenitors violate the principle of sufficient reason

That’s just speculation: show me evidence.

Actually this is just you saying, yet again, that it can’t be done because it can’t be done. Bit of a conversation stopper (you’ll be glad to hear )

 

[o_mlly]

That’s just speculation: show me evidence.

Actually this is just you saying, yet again, that it can’t be done because it can’t be done. Bit of a conversation stopper (you’ll be glad to hear )

Actually, scientists who deny PSR do so by putting forward a most difficult concept to accept – brute fact or “emerging property”. Bit of a conversation stopper (you’ll be glad to hear ) Either of these concepts says, “I observe the effect but I don’t have a clue as to how it came to be.”

 

[rossum]

Any hypothesis that claims beings evolved faculties not present in their progenitors violate the principle of sufficient reason.

Very obviously false. Lactase persistence, high altitude adaptations and HbC are all examples of new faculties evolving in humans. Similarly DDT resistance in insects and herbicide resistance in plants.

Your application of the principle of sufficient reason is obviously incorrect here.

 

[o_mlly]

Lactase persistence, high altitude adaptations and HbC are all examples of new faculties evolving in humans.

Nope. Natural selection acts on traits that are heritable, i.e., exists in the parent populations.

 

[rossum]

Nope. Natural selection acts on traits that are heritable, i.e., exists in the parent populations.

Nope. Natural selection acts on traits which are present in the individual organism’s DNA. Those traits are mostly inherited, but not all are. Some traits are due to new mutations present only in the individual, not in the parent or parents.

Lactase persistence is an obvious example. Lactase persistence is only present in about one third of the human population. Two thirds of humanity, as well as every other extant mammal species, does not have one of those DNA variants.

You are ignoring the observed fact of mutations. If you are trying to convince science to change, then you will not do it by ignoring observed facts.

 

[o_mlly]

Those traits are mostly inherited … Lactase persistence is only present in about one third of the human population.

? You make my point.

The portion of humanity lacking the trait did not randomly mutate (yet) so as to allow the gene to be expressed. Those that do possess the trait adapted to similar environments (dairy farming cultures) by inheriting the trait from ancestors who did randomly mutate so as to allow the gene to be expressed.

 

[rossum]

by inheriting the trait from ancestors who did randomly mutate so as to allow the gene to be expressed.

Exactly. Those ancestors did not inherit an already existing trait. It did not exist in their parent populations, but was a de novo trait caused by a new mutation not previously present in the population. That mutation was a rare beneficial mutation so it spread in that population. due to the availability of milk in their adult diet.