Why evolution doesnt matter.

[Detales]

Excellent, Dameedna. Yours is an observation of great accuracy. The issue at stake (drama being measured by the value of what’s a stake) is the emotional verification of the emotional addiction to a world view acquired by accident in the case of any individual. And as we know, any bit of information can be used as an “assemblage point” (thanks, Carlos) for any personally created or consensus “reality.” Faith and belief are both grown-up words for “lets pretend.” And it doesn’t matter the subtlety or volume of information brought to bear on and organized according to that bit, it is still a belief. And that is the time honored point of denial and avoidance of religionists: the stubborn unconscious failure to distinguish between what is known and what is imagined, but acted on as if actual.

If religion referred to an actual substantial reality, faith would not allow the lapses displayed by the faithful. In other words, there is a disconnect between faith and practice, the very point that allowed Gandhi to say “I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians; they are so unlike your Christ.” That is why, though faith can be a stricture on behavior by the sanction of consequence, either punishment or hurting the Source of Love (impossible), genuine morality and what might be actually called “salvation” is a matter of attainment of a certain state of awareness.

That state of awareness is spoken as the forms of the Golden Rule, not as a dictum for modifying behavior, but as an expression of recognition of a fundamental Reality, namely that the “other” is, in fact, my Self in essence. This is why on the Greek temple and throughout history it has said some form of “Gnothi Seauton.” “Know thySelf.”

This is why religion fails and realization invariably produces moral and wise individuals. It is also why religion tends to be a prophylactic and a soporific, and is the real reason that it was said that religion is the opium of the masses. It is not because there is not God, it is because religion is a misdirection from the actuality of spiritual growth. Such as perhaps St. Theresa of Avila and certainly, in my opinion, Aquinas, transcended by crashing themselves against the pillars of faith until they woke up.

But it is also why what is vaguely called the Perennial Philosophy has been so consistent over the ages independent of its many realizer’s original time, place, culture, gender, intelligence, or even religion. And that is why, from another perspective, why religion and the discussion about evolution is not based on God at all.

 

[grannymh]

If you are going to accept Hawks et al as an authority, then you have to give up the idea that there is a minimal bottleneck at any time in human ancestry after 2 million years BP (and there is no direct evidence for a minimal bottleneck then - merely that the evidence, in their view, doesn’t preclude one).

A bottleneck is basically the event of a reduced population which occurs at a specific time. As such, bottlenecks can occur in any species. When one is considering the human species, there can be some confusion between hominids, pre-humans and modern humans; consequently, one needs to be careful as to which group a specific bottleneck refers to. The following research paper is an example.

In the beginning of “Molecular Genetics of Speciation and Human Origins”, Francisco Ayala refers to human evolution. The unsuspecting reader could easily assume incorrectly that Ayala is referring to humans as we know them.

Toward the paper’s end, Ayala defines what he means by humans. He begins the section “Theories of Human Origins” with “The origin of anatomically modern humans, Homo sapiens sapiens, occurred around 200,000 years B.P.” He also refers to other theories regarding “the emergence of anatomically modern traits…” For the biological researcher, only anatomy is available for consideration.

In general, the paper’s data refer to the genomic structure leading to the anatomically modern humans following the divergence from a common ancestor. For example, Ayala writes: “The time scale has been determined by the 'minimum-minimum” method which is based on the comparison between pairs of species that share the same divergence node, such as the three pairs orangutan-human, orangutan-gorilla, and orangutan-chimpanzee." Over time, others have placed humans as possibly the third member of the chimpanzee group. Regardless, of how one determines relationship between physical anatomies, researchers are still dealing only with the corporeal and not the complete human being.

In other words, When Ayala refers to the evolution from H. erectus to archaic H. Sapiens, and later to anatomically modern humans, he is referring to physical aspects only and not to the fully complete human person. Consequently, a statement that “no severe population bottleneck has occurred in human evolution” applies only to the evolving anatomy in hominids and pre-humans
and not to the true nature of the human species. Genomic research is limited. The question remains: What is the point of origin of the fully complete human.

You then have a number of problems to deal with if you are going to associate this bottleneck with a literal Adam and Eve:

As demonstrated by the above paper, particular research regarding reduced populations does not necessarily pertain to the literal fully complete humans.

1. The emergence of individuals that you must regard as fully human are able to do nothing more advanced than use their predecessors’ Oldowan lithic technology for half a million years.

A half million years is an assumption since it has not been demonstrated when the fully complete humans came into existence.

1. You then condemn them to a further million years of barely changing Acheulean lithic culture

Ancient types of culture are not necessarily the same as actual human culture.

1. You pre-date the emergence of anatomically modern humans with modern human brains by 1.8 million years

The questionable assumption regarding the cranium size in hominids is that the size of the bone structure found in ancient fossils determines human intellectual capabilities.

1. You pre-date the emergence of modern human behaviour (and, by implication, human cognition) by 1.95 million years.

Emergence should not be equated with actual. Human behaviour also involves sentience which is not the same as the faculties of the human intellect.

It seems to me to be a distortion of what it means to be fully human to associate the emergence of Homo erectus with the Adam and Eve myth.

The emergence of ancestral pre-humans is scientifically viewed as a difference in anatomies of the fossils. While there have been discoveries of ancient DNA, DNA is still in the material realm of the corporeal.

It would be a myth to consider Adam and Eve as only an example of anatomy.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Such as perhaps St. Theresa of Avila and certainly, in my opinion, Aquinas, transcended by crashing themselves against the pillars of faith until they woke up.

The content of a statement of faith is necessarily approximate. Truth is encountered, and then described (insufficiently). Truth is not described before it is encountered.

The problems with religion are the problems of a person describing what he has not encountered. If people would stop trying to do that, and just keep looking for the Truth, most of these problems would go away. Meet God, and then you’ll have half of chance of not distorting the Truth about Him.

Perhaps the problem of every organization is just that: members seeking to describe what they have not encountered. Science, as you know, is no exception.

 

[edwest2]

Evolution isn’t a threat to a philosophy or belief in a God.

It is however a threat to the statement above, along with certain beliefs such as God intervening in life along with the “qualities” of God that people claim are true.

Evolution and God are not the issue.

It is the attempt to maintain a religious belief that has since been challenged that is the problem. That is why people have an issue with evolution. Their faith is based on either a church, a book or a philosophy which evolution and modern science challenge if one is to maintain any intergrity in their beliefs. It isn’t really based on God at all.

In terms of the OP, I think for the first time ever, he is some-what correct…lol!!

Evolution and God are the only issues. For some unknown reason, people come here to criticize Genesis. Is there a single scientific paper that proves or disproves any part of the Bible? No. Only people who post here with their assertions. From the Catholic perspective, these assertions represent incomplete and distorted information at best. This forum is called Catholic Answers.

Peace,
Ed

 

[tjm190]

Evolution and God are the only issues. For some unknown reason, people come here to criticize Genesis. Is there a single scientific paper that proves or disproves any part of the Bible? No. Only people who post here with their assertions. From the Catholic perspective, these assertions represent incomplete and distorted information at best. This forum is called Catholic Answers.

Peace,
Ed

They criticize a specific interpretation of Genesis because it has been disprove and an industry has sprung uo trying to convince people otherwise.

 

[edwest2]

They criticize a specific interpretation of Genesis because it has been disprove and an industry has sprung uo trying to convince people otherwise.

“it has been disprove”? I don’t think so. All that is going on here is that some posters have convinced themselves of some particular interpretation and are trying to convince Catholics it’s true. The Church recognizes only two people as the parents of us all. I suggest that those people contact the Vatican if they think otherwise and simply stop posting here.

Peace,
Ed

 

[itinerant1]

Yes Not likely. Perhaps you could reference that for us, because I am not aware of this finding. (You do know that Drosophila is a genus, not a species?).

I don’t have a reference. It was just some genetics shop talk I overheard. No species mentioned. As far as Drosophila being a “genus”, well duh, entomology was one of my hobbies for many years. I had an outstanding collection of Coleoptera.

But you are getting things back to front. You are questioning evidence for a severe population bottleneck - not evidence against it.

Obviously. Just looking at evidence from different angels, such as how fast does mtDNA evolve, what about nuclear DNA, etc.

 

[itinerant1]

“it has been disprove”? I don’t think so. All that is going on here is that some posters have convinced themselves of some particular interpretation and are trying to convince Catholics it’s true. The Church recognizes only two people as the parents of us all. I suggest that those people contact the Vatican if they think otherwise and simply stop posting here.

Peace,
Ed

Ed, Do you really think they should stop posting here? I should not have asked that question because I already know the answer.

Does it violate CAF policy for a poster to challenge Catholic beliefs. As for myself, I like to see different opposing views argued, but I have never looked at the CAF policy.

 

[StAnastasia]

Does it violate CAF policy for a poster to challenge Catholic beliefs. As for myself, I like to see different opposing views argued, but I have never looked at the CAF policy.

Do you mean the CAF policy that no one should post against what What Ed believes?

 

[edwest2]

Ed, Do you really think they should stop posting here? I should not have asked that question because I already know the answer.

Does it violate CAF policy for a poster to challenge Catholic beliefs. As for myself, I like to see different opposing views argued, but I have never looked at the CAF policy.

I suggested that they contact the Vatican. I am not advocating any policy, but my suggestion is a valid one. That way, they could get an official answer.

Peace,
Ed

 

[itinerant1]

I suggested that they contact the Vatican. I am not advocating any policy, but my suggestion is a valid one. That way, they could get an official answer.

Peace,
Ed

Ed, you must realize there are all stripes of Catholics – orthodox Catholics, cafeteria Catholics, sede vacantist Catholics, Mafia Catholics, Kennedy leftist type Catholics, and so on, ad infinitum. So, from this fact you should be able to see why you just can’t tell everyone to contact the Vatican for the official position of the Church.

Not all Catholics are in line with the Magesterium. For instance, Pierre Teihard de Chardin, due to his version of evolution, denied that most empirically verifiable of all doctrines, Original Sin. However, I still find valuable insights in some of his works. And Pope Benedict occasionally quotes from Teilhard, using his works cautiously.

And what about non-Catholics, atheists, and agnostics? Who will you tell them to consult? The Pope? God?

If a particular interpretation of genetics data appears to conflict with Catholic doctrine, that tells me to find out as much as possible about all sides of the issue. I see it as a challenge. I am not worried about it. Theologically, if the Catholic position is de fide, and there is no other conceivable way to interpret the doctrine while remaining within its scope and defined meaning, then well and good, the current scientific challenges notwithstanding.

Scientific knowledge is perinoetic and does not attain the same degree of understanding reality as does dianoetic knowledge. Furthermore, natural science in itself, does not rise to the degree of certainty found in metaphysics and theology. This is even true moreso with the greater broadness of a scientific theory. Even within science itself, simple scientific statements carry much more certainty than do broad theories. No one will doubt that our solar system is heliocentric. No revision expected there. But there have always been many things to doubt and revise in evolution theory.

If you like to read, I will recommend a book for any Catholics who want to sharpen their understanding of the philosophical problems involved in evolution theory as regards man: Origin of the Human Species by Dr. Dennis Bonnette.

I think it is a good thing that we can all argue our various opinions on the internet, because if we were all put in the same auditorium together to discuss and debate, it would not be long before tables were overturned, cups and saucers started flying around the room, and the cops were called to clear us all out.

 

[itinerant1]

Do you mean the CAF policy that no one should post against what What Ed believes?

LOL

 

[tjm190]

“it has been disprove”? I don’t think so. All that is going on here is that some posters have convinced themselves of some particular interpretation and are trying to convince Catholics it’s true. The Church recognizes only two people as the parents of us all. I suggest that those people contact the Vatican if they think otherwise and simply stop posting here.

Peace,
Ed

It has been disproved, just like the moon landing conspiracy theories, 9/11 conspiracy theories, and just about every other idea that plays on the fact that even the most comprehensive set of data is not 100% continuous.

 

[edwest2]

Ed, you must realize there are all stripes of Catholics – orthodox Catholics, cafeteria Catholics, sede vacantist Catholics, Mafia Catholics, Kennedy leftist type Catholics, and so on, ad infinitum. So, from this fact you should be able to see why you just can’t tell everyone to contact the Vatican for the official position of the Church.

Not all Catholics are in line with the Magesterium. For instance, Pierre Teihard de Chardin, due to his version of evolution, denied that most empirically verifiable of all doctrines, Original Sin. However, I still find valuable insights in some of his works. And Pope Benedict occasionally quotes from Teilhard, using his works cautiously.

And what about non-Catholics, atheists, and agnostics? Who will you tell them to consult? The Pope? God?

If a particular interpretation of genetics data appears to conflict with Catholic doctrine, that tells me to find out as much as possible about all sides of the issue. I see it as a challenge. I am not worried about it. Theologically, if the Catholic position is de fide, and there is no other conceivable way to interpret the doctrine while remaining within its scope and defined meaning, then well and good, the current scientific challenges notwithstanding.

Scientific knowledge is perinoetic and does not attain the same degree of understanding reality as does dianoetic knowledge. Furthermore, natural science in itself, does not rise to the degree of certainty found in metaphysics and theology. This is even true moreso with the greater broadness of a scientific theory. Even within science itself, simple scientific statements carry much more certainty than do broad theories. No one will doubt that our solar system is heliocentric. No revision expected there. But there have always been many things to doubt and revise in evolution theory.

If you like to read, I will recommend a book for any Catholics who want to sharpen their understanding of the philosophical problems involved in evolution theory as regards man: Origin of the Human Species by Dr. Dennis Bonnette.

I think it is a good thing that we can all argue our various opinions on the internet, because if we were all put in the same auditorium together to discuss and debate, it would not be long before tables were overturned, cups and saucers started flying around the room, and the cops were called to clear us all out.

Well, I offered the suggestion as speaking for myself. However, I will continue to present what the Church teaches and I will continue to present the encyclical Humani Generis (available online) and Communion and Stewardship (also available onle), along with published comments by Pope Benedict and Cardinal Schoenborn as they are relevant. My goal is to always present the Catholic Answer.

I find opinions have lost their place for many on the internet, in some cases replacing facts and true statements of long standing. Working in the media, I have noticed a gradual slide toward incivility which is not what civilized human beings should be doing. Unless you prefer anarchy, someone needs to be the authoritative voice. For me, that authoritative voice is the Church.

In the meantime, I will continue to point out the vague, incomplete and false comments posted here. “Your Pope said…” “Didn’t the Church say…” And, after many years of dealing with people as a moderator on another forum, I’ve come to recognize a Public Relations campaign when I see one. That is going on here - no doubt about it.

Finally, it never ceases to pain me when people post complete falsehoods hoping someone will not notice, or worse, actually believe it. Catholics have been lied to before, especially over the last 40 years. I’ve seen it. The statements that promised something but gave us something else.

What about non-Catholics, agnostics and atheists? If I continue to post the Catholic Answer perhaps they’ll see how dogmatic those people who make unproveable statements here. They can’t do it in the lab but we are all led to believe:

A) A bunch of chemicals got together together one day and made man.

B) There can be no other possible explanation for human genetics except the one we’re currently pushing. For some, that’s carved in stone.

By the way, octopus evolution got pushed back millions of years a few days ago.

Finally, it is crystal clear to me that whatever fragment of science there may be to evolutionary theory, it was buried in the anti-theist assault on Christianity.

Peace,
Ed

 

[rossum]

I think it is a good thing that we can all argue our various opinions on the internet, because if we were all put in the same auditorium together to discuss and debate, it would not be long before tables were overturned, cups and saucers started flying around the room, and the cops were called to clear us all out.

Mmm… Tag Team Theology Deathmatch! Where can I sign up for tickets?

rossum

 

[itinerant1]

Mmm… Tag Team Theology Deathmatch! Where can I sign up for tickets?

rossum

This true the Ultimate Fighting. Are you sure you just want spectator tickets?

 

[StAnastasia]

This true the Ultimate Fighting. Are you sure you just want spectator tickets?

Theological cage-fighting?

 

[itinerant1]

Finally, it is crystal clear to me that whatever fragment of science there may be to evolutionary theory, it was buried in the anti-theist assault on Christianity.

That’s not “crystal clear” to me. I look at evolution ideas and theories in an historical perspective. The ideas are seminal in ancient Greece (even though Gould has his facts about this fairly well mixed up).

Evolutionary ideas, from a theological perspective, are found in the writings of St. Augustine and St. Gregory of Nyssa and his school; and then we have the Renaissance ideas, and continue on up to the present. Since Darwin, I see Darwinians at times carefully observing a methodological naturalism, or practicing strict science, and in other decades not so at all.

So, I see a lot of good science in the historical picture.

The misuse of science as a weapon against belief in absolute values and truth is more an ideology coated with a veneer of science.

Nonetheless, I think in your defense of religious beliefs, you come across as discounting or decanting more than is warranted.

 

[itinerant1]

Theological cage-fighting?

That’s what I’m talkin’ about!

 

[hecd2]

I don’t have a reference. It was just some genetics shop talk I overheard. No species mentioned. As far as Drosophila being a “genus”, well duh, entomology was one of my hobbies for many years. I had an outstanding collection of Coleoptera.

That’s excellent - what happened to your collection? Anyway, I wasn’t asking whether you were clear that Drosophila is a genus for no reason. What you suggested about unusually limited mitochondrial diversity just doesn’t seem right for a genus. As far as I know different species of the genus have different degrees of mitochondrial diversity, depending on their evolutionary history, but I know of no claim that any particular species, or the genus, is unusually restricted in mitochondrial diversity.

Obviously. Just looking at evidence from different angels, such as how fast does mtDNA evolve, what about nuclear DNA, etc.

Sure, and the answers are not simple, because they depend on what loci we are looking at, and the degree to which they are under selection. Some loci evolve very rapidly (the mammalian MHC for example), some are highly conserved (through purifying selection) and hardly change at all over long periods of time, and neutral loci evolve at a more clock-like rate. Some loci show limited diversity, not because they themselves are particularly specially selected, but because they are close to other loci which are subject to a selective sweep. All this and much more detail needs to be taken into account in analysing data to arrive at estimates of population size. One needs to address the data and the data analysis for different parts of the genome in individual papers to understand the way the conclusions are reached (although it is a fact that multiple analyses across many different sorts of genomic feature reach the same conclusions).

However, the conclusion that human ancestry has not passed through a bottleneck of two does not ultimately rest on estimates of rate of genetic change. We simply share more allelic lineages with chimpanzees than can have passed through a bottleneck of two people. The data from which it is concluded that the minimal bottlenecks of Ne is of the order of 1,000 individuals support and are consistent with this, but the conclusion does not depend on them.

Alec
evolutionpages.com