Evolution Must Go
#41
(11-25-2012, 09:30 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(11-23-2012, 10:01 PM)Hanno Wrote: Yes indeed.  Axona is a very able defender of evolution, and I look forward to seeing her thoughts on this.  I actually made the OP because I finally read Humani Generis in its entirety for the first time recently.  I knew that Pius XII had permitted an acceptance of evolution (at least, as it stood in 1950), but I didn't know that he absolutely insisted on a singular pair of first parents.  Given that the since-accumulated "evidence" for evolution almost definitively rules out such a scenario, I think theistic evolution (weak from the start, IMO)  is backed into a pretty tight corner at this point.

I always find it interesting that opponents of evolution try to make science fit in with their theology, rather than the other way around.  If our faith is true, then science is nothing to be afraid of.  If you reject science because you may have to tweak a non-essential component of the faith in order to justify the two, then you don't have faith, you have fear-based fundamentalism.

Original Sin is not a "non-essential component of the faith."  To preserve the doctrine of Original Sin, Pius XII insisted that Catholics must believe in a single contemporaneous pair of common ancestors.  Did you read the OP, Melkite?  And if so, would you care to answer the question I asked in it?
Reply
#42
(11-25-2012, 04:12 PM)Servus Immaculatae Wrote: Finally, I say macro-evolution is bad science because it imprudently jumps to rash conclusions without taking the care to follow the stringent scientific methods required in all other fields.

How does macro-evolution jump to "rash conclusions" without following "stringent scientific methods"? Do you even know what you're talking about? Have you ever taken a genetics course in your life? The guy who sequenced the human genome, who knows way more about genetics than you do, and who understands all of the statistics involved in analyzing DNA patterns disagrees. I guess he's just a liar, while you know way more than he does and are completely unbiased.

(11-25-2012, 02:58 PM)Melkite Wrote: I'm not sure how you can convince yourself that evolution isn't true, at least in some form, merely because your lifespan isn't sufficient enough to watch the entire process take place.  Do you likewise not believe that stars form, burn and eventually supernova because you don't live the billions of years to see the process?

This.

(11-25-2012, 05:27 PM)Hanno Wrote: If you want to substitute Noah for Adam, that's fine, but all your work is still ahead of you.  Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosomal Adam are thousands of years apart, so they couldn't stand in any better for Noah and his wife than they could for Adam & Eve.

One way to look at this is that it was only the Y-Chromosome that experienced a bottleneck in the flood (Noah and his sons were the only men to have survived). Noah's sons' wives were all genetically diverse and retained a mitochondrial ancestry that traces further back.


In any case, just because something is perceived to contradict the Bible does not mean that it is false. Yes, people keep bringing this up, but it is relevant: the Church once proclaimed that the sun revolved around the earth in opposition to Galileo. It was a controversial issue back in the day. Many viewed heliocentrism as being anti-biblical. I'm sure many Catholics who knew little about science thought that heliocentrism jumped to "rash conclusions" and did not follow "stringent scientific methods".

Therefore, you can't just view scientific theories through a Biblical lens and just reject a scientific theory whenever you happen to think that it "threatens" certain naturalistic descriptions in the Bible. That just seems dishonest to me. How am I supposed to turn a blind eye to evolution (and its genetic basis in homology, redundancy, synteny, pseudogeny, common design, etc.) when I work in a molecular biology and genetics lab, read primary literature, and see scientists carry out DNA sequencing, cloning, microarrays, PCR, Southern blotting, perform rigorous statistical analyses, etc., and therefore know that the stuff they do is not a hoax? I mean, seriously. Am I just supposed to ignore all of this stuff as lies? Treat these people as con-artists? How exactly is that not dishonest?

Yet, all of these literal creationists somehow just know that evolution is false without having any scientific background whatsoever. And no, pseudo-science articles from evangelical websites do not count.
Reply
#43
Well the wives of Noah's sons would have had different mitochondrial RNA so it would still make sense for Noah to be the most recent common male ancestor, but for Adam's wife to be the Mitochondrial Eve.
Reply
#44
(11-25-2012, 06:20 PM)Axona Wrote:
(11-25-2012, 04:12 PM)Servus Immaculatae Wrote: Finally, I say macro-evolution is bad science because it imprudently jumps to rash conclusions without taking the care to follow the stringent scientific methods required in all other fields.

How does macro-evolution jump to "rash conclusions" without following "stringent scientific methods"? Do you even know what you're talking about? Have you ever taken a genetics course in your life? The guy who sequenced the human genome, who knows way more about genetics than you do, and who understands all of the statistics involved in analyzing DNA patterns disagrees. I guess he's just a liar, while you know way more than he does and are completely unbiased.

(11-25-2012, 02:58 PM)Melkite Wrote: I'm not sure how you can convince yourself that evolution isn't true, at least in some form, merely because your lifespan isn't sufficient enough to watch the entire process take place.  Do you likewise not believe that stars form, burn and eventually supernova because you don't live the billions of years to see the process?

This.

(11-25-2012, 05:27 PM)Hanno Wrote: If you want to substitute Noah for Adam, that's fine, but all your work is still ahead of you.  Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosomal Adam are thousands of years apart, so they couldn't stand in any better for Noah and his wife than they could for Adam & Eve.

One way to look at this is that it was only the Y-Chromosome that experienced a bottleneck in the flood (Noah and his sons were the only men to have survived). Noah's sons' wives were all genetically diverse and retained a mitochondrial ancestry that traces further back.


In any case, just because something is perceived to contradict the Bible does not mean that it is false. Yes, people keep bringing this up, but it is relevant: the Church once proclaimed that the sun revolved around the earth in opposition to Galileo. It was a controversial issue back in the day. Many viewed heliocentrism as being anti-biblical. I'm sure many Catholics who knew little about science thought that heliocentrism jumped to "rash conclusions" and did not follow "stringent scientific methods".

Therefore, you can't just view scientific theories through a Biblical lens and just reject a scientific theory whenever you happen to think that it "threatens" certain naturalistic descriptions in the Bible. That just seems dishonest to me. How am I supposed to turn a blind eye to evolution (and its genetic basis in homology, redundancy, synteny, pseudogeny, common design, etc.) when I work in a molecular biology and genetics lab, read primary literature, and see scientists carry out DNA sequencing, cloning, microarrays, PCR, Southern blotting, perform rigorous statistical analyses, etc., and therefore know that the stuff they do is not a hoax? I mean, seriously. Am I just supposed to ignore all of this stuff as lies? Treat these people as con-artists? How exactly is that not dishonest?

Yet, all of these literal creationists somehow just know that evolution is false without having any scientific background whatsoever. And no, pseudo-science articles from evangelical websites do not count.
In response to the bolded, that is a non sequiturbecause the Church has never disavowed that teaching.
Reply
#45
(11-25-2012, 06:33 PM)MRose Wrote: In response to the bolded, that is a non sequiturbecause the Church has never disavowed that teaching.

So are you saying that the sun really revolves around the earth. . .? Or that the Church still teaches this?
Reply
#46
(11-25-2012, 05:27 PM)Hanno Wrote: If you want to substitute Noah for Adam, that's fine, but all your work is still ahead of you.  Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosomal Adam are thousands of years apart, so they couldn't stand in any better for Noah and his wife than they could for Adam & Eve.

Well, mitchondrial Eve wasn't Noah's wife, that's the whole point.  Mitochondrial Eve was Eve.  Y-Chromosomal Adam was Noah.  The four males on Noah's Ark (if the story happened literally) either were Noah or came through Noah, so Noah is the oldest common male ancestor.  The four women on the Ark were Noah's wife and his three daughters-in-law.  They presumably were unrelated, so the oldest common female ancestor would pre-date the flood.  The oldest common male ancestor would not.  Whether it was true world-wide flood or not was irrelevant.  Nothing short of a world-wide cataclysm could cause all of the world's population to either die or become sterile except for one man among millions.
Reply
#47
(11-25-2012, 05:31 PM)Hanno Wrote: Original Sin is not a "non-essential component of the faith."  To preserve the doctrine of Original Sin, Pius XII insisted that Catholics must believe in a single contemporaneous pair of common ancestors.  Did you read the OP, Melkite?  And if so, would you care to answer the question I asked in it?

The two points you made in the first post are kind of non-sensical.  I have heard some people speculate that there were multiple humans at the beginning of the species, but I hear more of people speaking of mitochondrial Eve and y-chromosomal Adam.  Obviously, they are speaking of two individuals, not a group of people.  I have heard more secular, atheist scientists say that the genetic evidence suggests all humans descend from one male and one female than from several hundred humans all evolving at the same time.

The speculation of hundreds of humans at the beginning is because they don't take into consideration a world-wide cataclysm to explain the difference in time between mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam.

Your two points are nonsensical because they presume that the progenitors of humanity were both one man and one woman, and also 1200 human beings.  That's not logically possible.  I presume the reason you weren't able to discover the Noah solution is because, rather than trying to see if the evidence and Scripture could be reconciled, you initially saw a contradiction and merely scoffed at the science.  The thing with this is, if you believe so strongly that your faith is true, then science can't contradict it, it can only affirm it.  So there is nothing to be scared of in exploring science.  The only reason you could have for ignoring the science outright, as you have done, is if deep down, you don't really believe the faith as solidly as you claim to.  You have doubts, maybe you aren't even aware of them yet, but it's natural.  But your faith can only be strengthened by confronting the science as a guide rather than a deceiver.  Dismissing it as a deceiver whenever it initially appears to contradict your faith shows that your faith is weak.
Reply
#48
(11-25-2012, 06:20 PM)Axona Wrote: One way to look at this is that it was only the Y-Chromosome that experienced a bottleneck in the flood (Noah and his sons were the only men to have survived). Noah's sons' wives were all genetically diverse and retained a mitochondrial ancestry that traces further back.

(11-25-2012, 06:28 PM)DoktorDespot Wrote: Well the wives of Noah's sons would have had different mitochondrial RNA so it would still make sense for Noah to be the most recent common male ancestor, but for Adam's wife to be the Mitochondrial Eve.

This is a perfectly nice way of looking at it, but it doesn't answer the OP.

If you both accept the flood, then you're saying that there were two bottlenecks in history: one at Adam and Eve, and another after the deluge.  The first is a bottleneck of 2 humans, the second is a bottleneck of 6.  Fair enough.  How do you reconcile this with the scientific data that says the smallest bottleneck would've been 1,200 at the very least?

Reply
#49
(11-25-2012, 06:52 PM)Melkite Wrote: The two points you made in the first post are kind of non-sensical.  I have heard some people speculate that there were multiple humans at the beginning of the species, but I hear more of people speaking of mitochondrial Eve and y-chromosomal Adam.  Obviously, they are speaking of two individuals, not a group of people.  I have heard more secular, atheist scientists say that the genetic evidence suggests all humans descend from one male and one female than from several hundred humans all evolving at the same time.

The speculation of hundreds of humans at the beginning is because they don't take into consideration a world-wide cataclysm to explain the difference in time between mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam.

Your two points are nonsensical because they presume that the progenitors of humanity were both one man and one woman, and also 1200 human beings.  That's not logically possible.  I presume the reason you weren't able to discover the Noah solution is because, rather than trying to see if the evidence and Scripture could be reconciled, you initially saw a contradiction and merely scoffed at the science.

Sorry, but Noah isn't the solution.  Read the OP again!  Noah's sons and their wives constitute a bottleneck of 6.  The point of the OP was that DNA modelling argues for a bottleneck of 1,200 at minimum.  You can change the problem from Adam to Noah, but you're still avoiding the question.  How do you reconcile your bottleneck of 6 with the data that says it was 1,200?

Anyway, you don't have to believe in the flood.  The flood is not de fide.  Original Sin is.  Pius XII says that as Catholics we must believe in a bottleneck of 2 with Adam & Eve.  The evolutionary history contradicts this.  How do explain the contradiction?
Reply
#50
P.S.: for Melkite, Doktor Despot, and Axona:

This is a bit off-topic, but do you guys actually believe in a literal flood?  If so, you'd be the first three theistic evolutionists I've met who do.

Most people who accept the evidence for evolution, in my experience, also accept a geological record that says a worldwide flood couldn't have occurred.

So, yeah.  Just out of curiosity ...
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)