Why do so many Catholics accept evolution as fact?

[rossum]

Originally Posted by PseuTonym:
However, why isn’t it possible that the so-called “broken” gene is the ancestral form, and that the functioning gene developed in other primate species that aren’t extinct, but didn’t develop in human beings?

Other primate species either have the original functioning gene, or the same originally functioning version with added errors – a non-functioning pseudogene is not subject to error-correction by natural selection.

Early primates ate a fruit/vegetable diet which meant that the effects of the broken GULO gene were negligible. It is only in unnatural situations, like being away from fresh food on board ship for a long time that the broken gene becomes a problem.

There are different functioning versions in different species.

And primates share the same functioning version, different from the version in Armadillos for example. The pattern of different versions of functioning genes is part of the evidence in support of descent with modification.

If evolution can generate complicated, new genes then why can’t it fix broken genes that are broken in a small number of places?

It can. Individuals with a broken required gene die; individuals with a working version live. Since early primates got a lot of vitamin C in their diet, the GULO gene was not required.

Perhaps it is non-functional with respect to vitamin C synthesis, but perhaps it isn’t absolutely non-functional.

Where is your evidence for this? In science speculation unsupported by evidence does not get you very far. What function does the mangled product of the GULO-P pseudogene perform. What scientific paper shows this function?

That we see the “broken” gene only in human beings and some other primate species doesn’t imply that it first arose in primates. Another possibility is that there has been enough time and selective pressure for it to change in most mammal species.

Guinea Pigs also have a broken GULO gene. However, it is broken in a different way. The broken primate versions are all broken in the same way. Again, the pattern of the broken gene (and subsequent further changes) is good evidence for common descent.

rossum

 

[rossum]

I am a Catholic, who doesn’t really accept evolution. It seems absurd to me to say that a peacock evolved from a herring (or something).

It would indeed be absurd. Herrings are ray-finned fish (Actinopterygii) while Peacocks are Tetrapods and so descended from lobe-finned fish (Sarcopterygii). Those two clades separated about 420 million years ago. Peacocks evolved from a group containing Lungfish (with lungs) and Coelacanths (with stumpy fins). Lungs and stumps became lungs and legs. Much later the front pair of legs evolved into wings.

What’s more, since it the process of evolution (if it happened) is not really a repeatable experiment, the evidence seems flimsy.

Evolution can repeatedly let bacteria evolve resistance to antibiotics and weeds evolve resistance to herbicides. Knowledge of how evolution works is required to slow down or prevent the evolution of resistance.

rossum

 

[Techno2000]

It would indeed be absurd. Herrings are ray-finned fish (Actinopterygii) while Peacocks are Tetrapods and so descended from lobe-finned fish (Sarcopterygii). Those two clades separated about 420 million years ago. Peacocks evolved from a group containing Lungfish (with lungs) and Coelacanths (with stumpy fins). Lungs and stumps became lungs and legs. Much later the front pair of legs evolved into wings.

Evolution can repeatedly let bacteria evolve resistance to antibiotics and weeds evolve resistance to herbicides. Knowledge of how evolution works is required to slow down or prevent the evolution of resistance.

rossum

Can you show any animal today that is in the process of changing into something new ?

 

[hasantas]

Name one thing in the universe that was not created by God. (Excepting God of course.)

Being created by God is nothing special.

Evolution merely fills in some of the details. Evolution does not deal with souls, just with the physical part of our makeup.

Genesis says “Let the earth bring forth…” That gives us earth → animals → apes. All God has to do is to take some earth (which is now an ape) and give it a soul.

Evolution takes us from earth to the ape. After that, theology can take over.

rossum

All species were created by God. Transition between species is not valid. There is no any proof.

All details include subatomic particles are under control of God’s power and wisdom. Your statements imply as if God does not know and act deatils.

Human is the most clever creature in universe yet human cannot comprehend everything actually. Then there must be something else which can know and make every details. I think random changes cannot do that!

 

[tafan]

I am late to this discussion. Nevertheless, I will give my view. Evolution occurs, we can see it happen with weeds and herbicides. If all the farmers in an area start using the same herbicide for a given weed, it is not uncommon that after a few years the herbicide is no linger effective. A very small number of plants are immune to the herbicide initial. But they are the only plants that get to reproduce. After a few years, whatever gene made them immune, is in the whom population.

Now, the question is, to what degree does evolution work in the development of species. Over the years, I have become more and more convinced it answers a lot of questions. The broken vitamin C gene already discussed on this thread is quite convincing.

Nevertheless, there is a huge gap between modern man and any other animal. When considering thus gap, Chesterton’s arguments become more convincing to me than modern biologists. The scientists actually lose credibility when a large part if their answer is to downplay the differences between humans and animals.

So, while I believe evolution answers a lot, the good ole, God infused a human soul into Adam and Eve still seems to work pretty well at the same time.

 

[cfauster]

So, while I believe evolution answers a lot, the good ole, God infused a human soul into Adam and Eve still seems to work pretty well at the same time.

Indeed, several popes have noted that though God may have used non-human creatures in the process of creating the human body, God specially and directly created - and continues to specially and directly create - each human soul.

 

[mVitus]

Can you show any animal today that is in the process of changing into something new ?

Well you can look at the same species in different areas and see the possibility. Great white sharks in S. Africa hunt seals in a unique way (see Discovery channel’s Air Sharks) so it’s probable that those best able to gain the speed for lunging out of the water will do best. Dogs are an example of rapid evolution. Bacteria has been mentioned. And human skulls are not as thick as they were thousands of years ago so we ourselves may be experiencing some minor changes, plus some scientists predict the pinky finer will disappear. (Though that’s one thing I’m not sure on.)

 

[TMC]

Can you show any animal today that is in the process of changing into something new ?

Yes, all of them.

 

[Techno2000]

Well you can look at the same species in different areas and see the possibility. Great white sharks in S. Africa hunt seals in a unique way (see Discovery channel’s Air Sharks) so it’s probable that those best able to gain the speed for lunging out of the water will do best. Dogs are an example of rapid evolution. Bacteria has been mentioned. And human skulls are not as thick as they were thousands of years ago so we ourselves may be experiencing some minor changes, plus some scientists predict the pinky finer will disappear. (Though that’s one thing I’m not sure on.)

Two Great white sharks mate together and you still get Great white sharks , same with Dogs.

 

[Techno2000]

Yes, all of them.

Into what ?

 

[rossum]

Can you show any animal today that is in the process of changing into something new ?

All species that live in a changing environment are changing over time. Taking humans as an example, the genes for digesting milk into adulthood are spreading, and have been spreading for many thousands of years.

The genes for HIV resistance are spreading, and have only been spreading for the last 70 years or so.

Evolution adjust species to fit their environment. If the environment changes then the species in that environment evolve to match. For the two example the changes were the domestication of sheep and cattle for the first, and the transfer of SIV in apes to HIV in humans.

rossum

 

[Techno2000]

All species that live in a changing environment are changing over time. Taking humans as an example, the genes for digesting milk into adulthood are spreading, and have been spreading for many thousands of years.

The genes for HIV resistance are spreading, and have only been spreading for the last 70 years or so.

Evolution adjust species to fit their environment. If the environment changes then the species in that environment evolve to match. For the two example the changes were the domestication of sheep and cattle for the first, and the transfer of SIV in apes to HIV in humans.

rossum

Are cattle and sheep changing into something new ?

 

[rossum]

Transition between species is not valid.

False. See Tauber and Tauber (1977) Sympatric Speciation Based on Allelic Changes at Three Loci: Evidence from Natural Populations in Two Habitats. There are many other examples of speciation in the scientific literature.

There is no any proof.

Science does not do “proof”, that is for Mathematics. Every scientific theory is open to being replaced by a better theory if the evidence warrants it. Newton’s theory of Gravity was never “proved”. It was the best we had until about 1916-1919, when it was replaced by Einstein’s theory of General Relativity. In due course General Relativity will be replaced by a theory of Quantum Gravity.

All details include subatomic particles are under control of God’s power and wisdom. Your statements imply as if God does not know and act deatils.

I imply nothing of the sort. Science merely described the “how”, not the “who”.

I think random changes cannot do that!

Random changes do not. Random changes followed by selection of the better working changes can do a lot more than you think. That is why computer genetic algorithms are used to solve some problems.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Two Great white sharks mate together and you still get Great white sharks , same with Dogs.

Are you identical to your parents? Two sharks mate to produce slightly different sharks. Repeat many times and those slight differences can add up, especially in a changing environment.

rossum

 

[Techno2000]

Are you identical to your parents? Two sharks mate to produce slightly different sharks. Repeat many times and those slight differences can add up, especially in a changing environment.

rossum

No, but I’m still a Human, and a shark will always produce another shark.

 

[TMC]

Into what ?

Who knows (other than God). Evolution hasn’t stopped. Its a continuous and ongoing process.

 

[ThundersnowIV]

 

[Wesrock]

Are cattle and sheep changing into something new ?

They’ve changed a great deal already over a short span of a few thousand years due to domestication. Look at what has happened with canines in just a few thousand years (hundreds, in some cases), though it has not been long enough for reproductive isolation.

And we’re not talking about this cow or that cow changing. We’re simply taking about allele drift and selection pressures on living populations, not individuals, working over millions of years. Speciation has no one cut off point. Populations will diverge and converge again. But eventually with enough separation you’ll have two groups isolated from reproducing by any number of factors, including geographical and behavioral, and perhaps eventually due to genetic incompatibility.

It’s not like any one offspring pops out as an “evolved” form of its parents and a new species. The traits present within a given population change over time, while the given population at any one moment will look very similar among itself, but perhaps different than the ancestral population it diverged from hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of years ago.

Nor are things actively evolving. It’s simply selective pressures. If selective pressures remain constant, a species might very well remain the same for millions of years. And typically the entire population does not undergo trait drift together. It’s more common for a group of a population to become isolated in some way and then experience different selective pressures over hundreds of thousands or millions of years than other parts of the ancestral whole population, which may lead to a divergence as different traits are more advantageous to the new situation resulting in increased dispersion of certain traits due to it being a reproductive boon. Or perhaps a non-advantageous trait becomes advantageous in different circumstances, or a neutral trait which had very small minority representation only in one small subpopulation becomes a common trait for that subpopulation after it becomes isolated from the main population, has a more limited reproductive pool, and has trait divergences in other areas.

This is only the how of part of our history. Certainly in the divine intellect all of this and the results are known and intended, and God remains the ontological cause. And neither do we need to say that simple allele drift over millions of years can account for the rational soul of man.

 

[Techno2000]

Who knows (other than God). Evolution hasn’t stopped. Its a continuous and ongoing process.

So only God knows ?

 

[GEddie]

I am a Catholic, who doesn’t really accept evolution. It seems absurd to me to say that a peacock evolved from a herring (or something).

Peacocks didn’t evolve from herrings, per se.

Structures evolved to create new beings. So there were fish, then fish with lungs who could breathe air and use their fins as feet, finally our wiggly-toed and air-breathing human bodies.

They’ve actually isolated the gene that leads from the fish fin to the human hand. Now that to me speaks of creative power. Far more than the shaping of a clay body and making him breathe.

IMINWHO.

ICXC NIKA