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

[o_mlly]

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.

Nope. All humans have the lactase enzyme trait at birth.

Throughout most of human history, the ability to digest lactose , the principal sugar of milk, has been switched off after weaning because the lactase enzyme that breaks the sugar apart is no longer needed.

 

[buffalo]

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.

Examples of microevolutin aka adaptation. No one argues this.

 

[buffalo]

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.

Was this a cell directed mutation?

 

[o_mlly]

Examples of microevolutin aka adaptation. No one argues this.

Yes. The PSR is not violated by (d)evolution defined as loss of function. While progenitors cannot give what they do not have, they sometimes do not give all that they have.

 

[rossum]

Nope. All humans have the lactase enzyme trait at birth.

Correct. All mammals for that matter.

Throughout most of human history, the ability to digest lactose , the principal sugar of milk, has been switched off after weaning because the lactase enzyme that breaks the sugar apart is no longer needed.

Again correct for ourselves and other mammals. A mutation in the off-switch sometimes disables it. Where milk is available as food to adults that mutation is beneficial, and it will spread in the population. The mutations (there is more than one variant) are not in the DNA for the lactase enzyme itself, they are in the off-switch for that enzyme.

The inability to switch off lactase production is new, and was not present in ancestors.

Mutations result in new, or different, DNA which may be neutral, deleterious or beneficial. The mutated DNA is different from parental DNA and was not inherited, contrary to your earlier claim.

 

[rossum]

Examples of microevolutin aka adaptation. No one argues this.

Apparently o_mlly does argue this, claiming that all new functionality is inherited from forebears.

 

[rossum]

Was this a cell directed mutation?

Define “cell directed mutation” in enough detail so I can recognise one when I see it please.

 

[buffalo]

Apparently o_mlly does argue this, claiming that all new functionality is inherited from forebears.

Do you accept the new science on cell directed mutations?

 

[Eric_Hyom]

The phrase ‘we don’t know’ is becoming a constant in this discussion.

Does this pose more of a problem for the theist or the atheist?

Theists can claim they have faith and trust in God, so we don’t have to rely on science for any evidence. As you say we don’t know, so science can’t help us anyway.

 

[o_mlly]

The inability to switch off lactase production is new, and was not present in ancestors.

In all ancestors? And you know this as a fact how?

Of course you cannot know what you claim as fact. You’ve been called out on this fallacious argumentative tactic repeatedly. Please stop.

Apparently o_mlly does argue this, claiming that all new functionality is inherited from forebears.

Straw man. Cite the post or recant.

 

[buffalo]

Define “cell directed mutation” in enough detail so I can recognise one when I see it please.

Experimentally

To conclude
Mutations are highly non-random and directed; numerous mechanisms for generating mutations are involved that appear to be under the control of the cell or organism as a whole in different environmental contexts, leading to repeatable mutations in specific genes. These results are contrary to the fundamental neo-Darwinian tenet that evolution depends on the natural selection of random genetic mutations. I suggest that specific electromagnetic signals emitted by key molecules that can relieve the stress are communicated directly to activate the transcription and mutation of the requisite gene(s).

https://www.researchgate.net/public...irmedf/link/0c960528cf43813ca1000000/download

 

[Techno2000]

rare beneficial mutation

It can’t be that rare, to go from one single first cell organism to the millions and millions of the different plants and animals we have today.How many transitional steps you think that took?

 

[whatistrue]

It can’t be that rare

Rare in absolute numbers? Obviously not. Rare as a percentage? Yes, very.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

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?

No, I mean he assembled building blocks produced by chemical processes into primitive living organisms. Mutations have nothing to do with it.

Straw man. Cite the post or recant.

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

There you go. Oh, this too:

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

Of course you cannot know what you claim as fact. You’ve been called out on this fallacious argumentative tactic repeatedly. Please stop.

Then you need to as well, but it’s only a problem when we do it. See above as to examples.

 

[o_mlly]

o_mlly:

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?

No, I mean he assembled building blocks produced by chemical processes into primitive living organisms. Mutations have nothing to do with it.

Couldn’t you make that a little muddier? This is a yes or no question: Did God use His creative power in any manner to effect the first living creature?

Then you need to as well, but it’s only a problem when we do it. See above as to examples.

Please follow the thread. I have argued that the speculations of speciation (whatever that means) is not substantiated via a single direct observation. How does one evidence the lack of evidence in another? I have refuted the crawdad, bugs and plant examples offered.

Further, I single you out to explain how as a Catholic you square CCC#318 with your posts on the origin of the universe and life. So far, the replies you have given are pretty ambiguous.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Couldn’t you make that a little muddier? This is a yes or no question: Did God use His creative power in any manner to effect the first living creature?

This is not a yes or no question, because you’ve repeatedly tried to muddy my words and make me say something incorrect. Yes, God created the first living things from pre-existing matter. Don’t see how I could be any clearer.

Please follow the thread. I have argued that the speculations of speciation (whatever that means) is not substantiated via a single direct observation. How does one evidence the lack of evidence in another? I have refuted the crawdad, bugs and plant examples offered.

Where did you refute any of them at all? I certainly didn’t see a response to the studies which observed speciation. All I saw was you saying “No that can’t be right bc I don’t agree and therefore isn’t.”

Further, I single you out to explain how as a Catholic you square CCC#318 with your posts on the origin of the universe and life.

I see absolutely no conflict. That which has being is the only thing which can create existence. That’s my position.

 

[rossum]

In all ancestors? And you know this as a fact how?

Show me any non-human mammal species with lactase persistence at more than, say, 1% of its population.

Straw man. Cite the post or recant.

Certainly:

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

Your “exists in parent populations” does not apply to new mutations. Natural selection operates on all an individual’s DNA, whether inherited or newly mutated.

 

[Usagi]

I agree that genealogies are not an exact dating mechanism. But if the genealogy seems to disagree by many thousands of years then there is a problem, so I would say that the sacred texts are useful at giving a ballpark figure for the start of human civilization

Oh, I think the dating suggested in Genesis definitely points to the beginning of human civilization, or at least the spread of human civilization in Mesopotamia.

But that is very much not the same thing as saying we can be scientifically okay with placing the literal first human beings that recently. Unless we want to go with “God ensouled a pair of pre-existing H. sapiens,” but as you point out that ignores the Catholic understanding that the human soul isn’t an unnoticeable add-on, but must be present in any creature with reason and art and religion and all that.

Basically, the human writer of the genealogies wasn’t too far off in dating the first Mesopotamian cities, but it’s not likely that the planner of the first city was literally and directly the eldest son of the first two humans ever.

 

[o_mlly]

Yes, God created the first living things from pre-existing matter. Don’t see how I could be any clearer.

Thank you. Substituting the word “created” for “assembled” is all you needed to do to clarify.

Where did you refute any of them at all?

The only one offered in this thread was from @Pattylt. Search the thread for the exchange that ended with:

The validity of the new species claim for tragopogon miscellus Tm hinges on the aforementioned all too elastic definition of “species”. Is Tm a new species or an adaptation (microevolution) to a changing environment, i.e., elevation changes or Europe to North America?

Tm self-pollinates. Does it also pollinate with its parents? If so then Tm is not a new biological species in either event. Are the parent plants of Tm really different species? Since they successfully reproduce in nature and in the lab, is their species designation only morphological ?

Until the scientific community solidifies the “species” concept from the manifold – typological (morphological), biological, evolutionary, ecological, cladistic/phylogenetic – to a single concept, the designation does not have much meaning.

I refuted the crayfish and lacewing claims in previous threads.

That which has being is the only thing which can create existence. That’s my position.

You might want to rephrase. I have being but I cannot create nor can you.

 

[o_mlly]

o_mlly:

In all ancestors? And you know this as a fact how?

Of course you cannot know what you claim as fact. You’ve been called out on this fallacious argumentative tactic repeatedly. Please stop.

Show me any non-human mammal species with lactase persistence at more than, say, 1% of its population.

Sorry, science doesn’t work like that – lack of evidence is not evidence. So, again support your claim that:

The inability to switch off lactase production is new, and was not present in ancestors.

So show me evidence to support your claim that something never existed. Got milk?

o_mlly:

Straw man. Cite the post or recant.

Certainly:

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

Your “exists in parent populations” does not apply to new mutations. Natural selection operates on all an individual’s DNA, whether inherited or newly mutated.

Wrong post. Here’s the chain that precedes your straw man of me.

buffalo:

Examples of microevolutin aka adaptation. No one argues this.

Apparently o_mlly does argue this, claiming that all new functionality is inherited from forebears.

Straw man. Cite the post or recant.

Cite my post that supports your straw man, “all new functionality is inherited from forebears” or recant.

Here’s a chance to reclaim some of your falling credibility among your own supporters.