Evolution Must Go
#11
(11-23-2012, 11:05 PM)Servus Immaculatae Wrote: A model of macro-evolution which can also fit in with the infallible teachings of the Church on the authentic interpretation of Genesis is all but inconceivable. Of course, a model of macro-evolution which uses real, non-circumstantial evidence which can be demonstrated by experiment (as the Scientific Method necessitates) also eludes modern science.

Well said.  I agree completely.
Reply
#12
In that case, it seems that the objection is that there has not been enough time for macro-evolution to take place, not that there is some fundamental difference between micro and macro-evolution. That's a perfectly consistent position, of course. I just wasn't sure about the grounds on which people claim that micro-evolution can happen while macro-evolution is completely impossible.
Reply
#13
(11-24-2012, 01:35 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: In that case, it seems that the objection is that there has not been enough time for macro-evolution to take place, not that there is some fundamental difference between micro and macro-evolution. That's a perfectly consistent position, of course. I just wasn't sure about the grounds on which people claim that micro-evolution can happen while macro-evolution is completely impossible.

I understand that there is a fundamental difference, not just a difference of time.  The difference between macro-evolution and micro-evolution is that the former would is a change from one species to another species, but the latter is just a change within a species.  The idea is that one species is essentially different than another, but the changes within a species are only accidental.  That one sort of change is possible doesn't prove that the other sort of change is possible, even over time.

From the Institute of Creation Research: http://www.icr.org/article/1156/285/
Reply
#14
(11-24-2012, 03:43 AM)Doce Me Wrote: I understand that there is a fundamental difference, not just a difference of time.  The difference between macro-evolution and micro-evolution is that the former would is a change from one species to another species, but the latter is just a change within a species.  The idea is that one species is essentially different than another, but the changes within a species are only accidental.  That one sort of change is possible doesn't prove that the other sort of change is possible, even over time.

From the Institute of Creation Research: http://www.icr.org/article/1156/285/

Evolutionary biologists claim that there is no fundamental difference; that macro-evolution is just the product of millions of micro-evolutionary events. They then go on to list the differences you just cited (across species, time scale, etc).

Micro-evolution need not be accidental though. If I breed a red rose with a white rose to produce an offspring of a pink rose, that is a form of micro-evolution.
Reply
#15
On the question of first parents: the evidence in an evolutionary framework of human beings as rational creatures predates "Mitochondrial Eve" or "Y Adam" by a loooooong, loooooooooooooooong time.  I would suggest that Pius XII framework can still work with current science on the subject, with the single pair of Adam and Eve being much further back in history.  Just think of genetic "Adam and Eve" as later bottlenecks, ala Noah.
Reply
#16
(11-24-2012, 03:43 AM)Doce Me Wrote:
(11-24-2012, 01:35 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: In that case, it seems that the objection is that there has not been enough time for macro-evolution to take place, not that there is some fundamental difference between micro and macro-evolution. That's a perfectly consistent position, of course. I just wasn't sure about the grounds on which people claim that micro-evolution can happen while macro-evolution is completely impossible.

I understand that there is a fundamental difference, not just a difference of time.  The difference between macro-evolution and micro-evolution is that the former would is a change from one species to another species, but the latter is just a change within a species.  The idea is that one species is essentially different than another, but the changes within a species are only accidental.  That one sort of change is possible doesn't prove that the other sort of change is possible, even over time.

From the Institute of Creation Research: http://www.icr.org/article/1156/285/

That was an interesting article, but I'm not entirely sure on what it believes the essential difference between micro and macroevolution to be. In other words, it doesn't seem to show why microevolution must at some point run up against some kind of wall. I wish it had expanded on the conference in Chicago mentioned in the article, though. It seemed like it could have been interesting, but without more information, it is hard to know what those at the conference actually meant.

At any rate, I think a possible mistake here is to think that distinct types were somehow inserted into creation and only then did natural selection begin to act upon them. From an evolutionary perspective, organisms are always already adapted to their environment in some way.
Reply
#17
(11-24-2012, 04:01 PM)Parmandur Wrote: On the question of first parents: the evidence in an evolutionary framework of human beings as rational creatures predates "Mitochondrial Eve" or "Y Adam" by a loooooong, loooooooooooooooong time.  I would suggest that Pius XII framework can still work with current science on the subject, with the single pair of Adam and Eve being much further back in history.  Just think of genetic "Adam and Eve" as later bottlenecks, ala Noah.

You'd still be going against the DNA evidence that shows only two bottlenecks in the genetic history: an early one occurring at approximately 3 million years ago, where the hominins (not even modern humans, for that matter) sunk to about 10,000, and the later one at 20-40,000 years ago, which could've been almost as low as 1,200 or more humans. 

Where on this timeline do you want to insert your bottleneck of 2?

???
Reply
#18
(11-24-2012, 09:15 AM)Servus Immaculatae Wrote: Micro-evolution need not be accidental though. If I breed a red rose with a white rose to produce an offspring of a pink rose, that is a form of micro-evolution.

Maybe when I used the word "accidental" I was using it in a different sense than you did.  Your sense (I think) was the usual sense used today - something that is unintentional.  My sense was the sense often used by St. Thomas and other  philosophers - something that is a secondary attribute, not a part of the essence of the thing.  A rose is a rose (essentially), even if its color (which is an accident)  may be different - this is true even if the color change is due to intentional breeding.
Reply
#19
(11-24-2012, 05:30 PM)Hanno Wrote:
(11-24-2012, 04:01 PM)Parmandur Wrote: On the question of first parents: the evidence in an evolutionary framework of human beings as rational creatures predates "Mitochondrial Eve" or "Y Adam" by a loooooong, loooooooooooooooong time.  I would suggest that Pius XII framework can still work with current science on the subject, with the single pair of Adam and Eve being much further back in history.  Just think of genetic "Adam and Eve" as later bottlenecks, ala Noah.

You'd still be going against the DNA evidence that shows only two bottlenecks in the genetic history: an early one occurring at approximately 3 million years ago, where the hominins (not even modern humans, for that matter) sunk to about 10,000, and the later one at 20-40,000 years ago, which could've been almost as low as 1,200 or more humans. 

Where on this timeline do you want to insert your bottleneck of 2?

???
You seem to be holding that this DNA evidence is flawless and is not steeped in proevolution bias in its conclusions. Mankind cannot have any absolute historical knowledge of anything beyond 5000 years give or take a few thousand years more or less..since we cannot find any type of records or writing before that, all we have are suppositions, theorums and hunches and leaps of scientific faith. Mankind and all that we see was Created by God in a prehistoric time, he created all of it ex nihlo, and there is no scientific reason to doubt it. The only way to doubt this is to reject that such an entity as an omnipotent being ever existed. We can no more be sure of something 3 million years ago than we can be sure of what is coming 3 million years ahead. God is God...or there is no God. Materialist scientism cannot find a third way.
Reply
#20
(11-24-2012, 07:50 PM)JoeVoxxPop Wrote: You seem to be holding that this DNA evidence is flawless and is not steeped in proevolution bias in its conclusions.

A fair accusation, JoeVoxxPop!  But I plead not guilty.  Personally, I'm a creationist.  However, I'm not arguing for creationism in this thread.  Instead, I am asking those who think the DNA evidence is convincing how they reconcile their acceptance of evolution with the doctrinal teachings of Adam & Eve and Original Sin (specifically, with regard to Humani Generis).

Strictly for the sake of argument, I am granting that the current & best DNA modeling is more or less decent.  Assuming it is, how does one accept the scientific consensus on evolution with Pius XII's insistence that a Catholic must believe in a 2-person evolutionary bottleneck?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)