Population Bottleneck

#343

Just for the record, since we’re on the Catholic Answers website, let’s see what they have to say:

https://www.catholic.com/tract/adam-eve-and-evolution

"The Catholic Church has always taught that “no real disagreement can exist between the theologian and the scientist provided each keeps within his own limits. . . . If nevertheless there is a disagreement . . . it should be remembered that the sacred writers, or more truly ‘the Spirit of God who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men such truths (as the inner structure of visible objects) which do not help anyone to salvation’; and that, for this reason, rather than trying to provide a scientific exposition of nature, they sometimes describe and treat these matters either in a somewhat figurative language or as the common manner of speech those times required, and indeed still requires nowadays in everyday life, even amongst most learned people” (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus 18).

“As the Catechism puts it, “Methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things the of the faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are” (CCC 159). The Catholic Church has no fear of science or scientific discovery.”

Exactly. No conflict. Whatsoever.

Just for more fun, I’ll thow in a Time article from 2001: http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,134926,00.html

“Indeed, reading the entire Bible literally has not been a dominant practice among Catholics through much of the 20th century. Asked about the Pope’s statement, Father Peter Stravinskas, editor of the 1991 Catholic Encyclopedia, said, “It’s essentially what Augustine was writing. He tells us that we should not interpret Genesis literally, and that it is poetic and theological language.””

Or let’s analyze Ratzinger’s series of sermons in 1981: https://www.hprweb.com/2009/01/reading-genesis-with-cardinal-ratzinger/ (Homiletic and Pastoral Review, pretty radical stuff, huh?)

“As Cardinal Ratzinger has convincingly argued, in the case of the Hexaemeron [Genesis], we have to depart from a reading that is limited to the literalist sense because studies of ancient texts and ancient cultures — and not natural science — have given us good and necessary reasons for doing so. Sticking to a literalist reading of Genesis would do violence to the original meaning of the human author and thus to the truth God wanted to manifest through his words.”

Or if you don’t like Ratzinger (too liberal???) then try Cardinal Schonborn: “Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense — an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection — is not." (more liberal clap trap?)

0 Likes

#344

Well, then you’ve got to take this up with Leo XIII, Pius XII, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, the editor of the Catholic Encyclopedia. Cardinal Schonbrun…shall I go on?

Again: No conflict. Whatsoever.

And just to be fair, let’s turn the tables. You say what I am saying is “baloney.” PROVE IT. With mathematical certainty, of course. Be my guest!

1 Like

#345

I suggest you quit now before you repeat everything that’s already been written.

“Exactly. No conflict. Whatsoever.” I call baloney.

0 Likes

#346

It is the faulty human reasoning and conclusions that are the issue.

0 Likes

#347

Of course there are limits to evolution, as there are to any physical process. Evolution can’t produce features out of nowhere, and novelty, as it were, is an illusion of time.

0 Likes

#348

I think that’s my point - all rigorous scientific experiments into homeopathy show that it has no significant effect. And basic maths and probability show that if it did work, then you’d only have to drink a couple of glasses of water to receive every homeopathic “treatment.”

Yet those who believe in it won’t be swayed by the evidence, they just “know” it works… and offer up some personal anecdote (invariably a post hoc ergo propter hoc) as “proof.”

0 Likes

#349

An important paper came out this year about the high number of new genes required.

Recent studies show that many genes typically associated with metazoan functions actually pre-date animals themselves, supporting functional co-option of ‘unicellular genes’ during the genesis of metazoans.

However, the role of genome novelty in animal origins has not been fully evaluated. We hypothesize that genomic novelty had a major impact in this transition , particularly involving biological functions which are hallmarks of animal multicellularity (gene regulation, signalling, cell adhesion, and cell cycle). Here we apply a comparative genomics approach using sophisticated methods, newly developed programs, and a comprehensive taxon sampling. The reconstruction of the ancestral genome of the last common ancestor of animals shows a set of biological functions similar to other eukaryote ancestors, while revealing an unexpected expansion of gene diversity. These analyses also highlight 25 groups of genes only found in animals that are highly retained in all their genomes , with essential functions linked to animal multicellularity

Thus, the first animal genome was not only showing a higher proportion of Novel HG [homology groups], but these also perform major multicellular functions in the modern fruit fly genome. The implication is that the transition was accompanied by an increase of genomic innovation, including many new, divergent, and subsequently ubiquitous genes encoding regulatory functions associated with animal multicellularity.

  • For the origin of Eumetazoa (sponges + Planulozoa + Bilateria), 494 novel HGs are required.
  • For the origin of Planulozoa (ctenophores, placozoans, cnidarians + bilaterians), 1201 novel HGs are needed.
  • For the origin of Bilateria (animals with two-sided symmetry — a left and a right side), an additional 1580 HGs are required ! According to Figure 2, about 16 percent of the bilaterian genome entails novel HGs!

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04136-5.pdf

2 Likes

#350

But then we looked at the novel genes in the first animal genome that weren’t found in older lifeforms. We discovered the first animal had an exceptional number of novel genes, four times more than other ancestors. This means the evolution of animals was driven by a burst of new genes not seen in the evolution of their unicellular ancestors. https://theconversation.com/we-reconstructed-the-genome-of-the-first-animal-95900

These novel genes that are still widely found today control essential functions that are specifically related to lifeforms with multiple cells. Three groups of these genes are involved in transmitting different nervous system signals. But our analyses show that these genes are also found in animals that do not have a nervous system, such as sponges. That means the genetic basis of the nervous system may have evolved before the nervous system itself did.


Common design! and more support for

IDvolution - God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act.

This accounts for the diversity of life we see. The core makeup shared by all living things have the necessary complex information built in that facilitates rapid and responsive adaptation of features and variation while being able to preserve the “kind” that they began as. Life has been created with the creativity built in ready to respond to triggering events.

Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on Earth have the same core, it is virtually certain that living organisms have been thought of AT ONCE by the One and the same Creator endowed with the super language we know as DNA that switched on the formation of the various kinds, the cattle, the swimming creatures, the flying creatures, etc… in a pristine harmonious state and superb adaptability and responsiveness to their environment for the purpose of populating the earth

1 Like

#351

I’m not clear what your point is. I meant novelty of form. They’re talking about novelty in the genome, which isn’t a one to one translation to novel features. After all chimps and humans have at best 3% variation in genome, but within that small area of difference is what makes us human.

Evolutionary limits are simply that evolution builds on what is already there. Mutation, genetic drift, diploidy, are all engines of variation, but Darwin’s key point (since he didn’t have a system of heredity) was that that variation in a population always exists, whatever its source, and that means that some members of a population will be more fit from a reproductive stanspoint, and thus more likely to pass on their features.

The problem with the when macro versus micro is somehow wanting to believe that the two represent two types of evolution. They don’t. At best, micro describes evolution within a population, whereas macro represents speciation. But that really is an artificial division. Speciation in nature is hardly perfect, as examples like ring species demonstrates.

Novelty of form is a product of time. The chordate form evolved from bilateral predecessors, but features like the notochord didn’t just spring out of nowhere, but through a long process, as Darwin put it “descent with modification.”

I don’t even understand the problem here. Evolution hasn’t been a debatable point in biology circles in over a century, and certainly the Church has never seen it as conflicting with Scripture.

1 Like

#352

From the same paper:

Twenty five novel core groups of genes in animals. We identified
which novel gene functions were more retained through
evolution of animals. We find a total of 25 Novel Core HG:
protein groups emerging in the genome of the first animal and
still present in at least 43 of the 44 metazoan genomes examined
(Table 1); these are independent of alternative phylogenetic scenarios
at the root of animals.


Life has 500 or so of these conserved core genes that can produce all life and various features built right in from the beginning.(front loaded)

1 Like

#353

No longer valid. It is now under 70%.

0 Likes

#354

Yet they are finding just that, they did spring from nowhere.

2 Likes

#355

No it is not. Unless you have a citation, that sounds like the same tired faux claim floated by creationists for years.

1 Like

#356

Looking closely at the chimpanzee-like 76% of the human genome, we find that to make an exact alignment, we often have to introduce artificial gaps in either the human or the chimp genome. These gaps give another 3% difference. So now we have a 73% similarity between the two genomes.

In the neatly aligned sequences we now find another form of difference, where a single ‘‘letter’’ is different between the human and chimp genomes. These provide another 1.23% difference between the two genomes. Thus, the percentage difference is now at around 72%.

We also find places where two pieces of human genome align with only one piece of chimp genome, or two pieces of chimp genome align with one piece of human genome. This “copy number variation” causes another 2.7% difference between the two species. Therefore the total similarity of the genomes could be below 70%.

https://www.digibron.nl/search/detail/012dbecf3769c65345425d22/chimpanzee (Original paper)

1 Like

#357

When using finer resolutions and alignments it is now put between 83 and 94% This does not even consider epigenetics.

image

0 Likes

#358

I think it’s more line 80+ percent.

0 Likes

#359

Fascinating how something seemingly so scientific is not. This paper was published by an institute associated with the Dutch Reformed Church. The author has been (and may still be) on the “Scientific Panel” of the UK “Truth in Science” organization–a creationist outfit that promotes (big surprise!) the Discovery Institute’s brand of creationism.

“Nature” as quoted in the NIH News [https://www.genome.gov/.../2005-release-new-genome-comparison-finds-chimps-huma…](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=2ahUKEwjwyZLw2sDfAhXlkOAKHbHLC5gQFjACegQIBhAK&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.genome.gov%2F15515096%2F2005-release-new-genome-comparison-finds-chimps-humans-very-similar-at-dna level%2F&usg=AOvVaw0o9sDGJgR9CISQPqh-oKW4)

in 2005 gives a 96% similarity in genomes–and that was AFTER the chimp genome was sequenced.

Scientific American in 2014 https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tiny-genetic-differences-between-humans-and-other-primates-pervade-the-genome/ gives a 99% similarity in DNA with chimps.

A Smithsonian article (2018?) gives 5-6% difference, depending on how you calculate it. http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics

Nature (2012) https://www.nature.com/articles/nature11128 gives 1.3% difference with Bonobos.

Tell you what: You keep your study done by the creationists at the various creationist organizations, and I’ll stick with Nature, the Smithsonian, and Scientific American.

0 Likes

#360

Ahhhh - always look to attack the poster. Nice.

There is a long online dialog between Boggs and Venema. It is very enlightening. Those two are actually discussing the data and merits of the paper.

The percentage of nucleotides in the human genome that had one-to-one exact matches in the chimpanzee genome was 82.34%

0 Likes

#361

If you can’t actually find a legitimate paper, there’s always a creationist organization with a fake one.

0 Likes

#362

Yet the data and methods are acknowledged. He originally claimed 70% (and I did too). With the evo scientist’s challenges the methods were refined and revised upward to the numbers on the chart I posted.

John Sanford was an atheist and his research on the genome (Genetic Entropy) made him reconsider and is now a Christian. By your reasoning, his findings are not valid either. Amazing…

Maybe you are not aware the Catholic Church is and was a huge patron of scientific discovery. This was because we know the universe to be intelligible and worthy of study.

1 Like

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.