Is Theistic Evolution Tenable?

[one.opinion]

2 hours ago, Uber Genius said:

So when Franscis Collins came out with his book, "Language of God," and showed how some genes in non-coding regions of our DNA were 99% similar to that of mice, including errors of transition, it made no sense if mice weren't the ancestors of humans.

It has been years since I read it, and I don't remember this part at all. If he really did mention 99% similar regions, it would have to be rather short regions. Humans and mice show much lower similarities in coding regions.

2 hours ago, Uber Genius said:

Luckily for me a couple years later Collins came out saying we now know that what we thought was junk actually has significant function so instead of residual non-functioning code we had working code that was useful to both organisms currently.

I'd have to see that quote and the context. Evidence has shown that some non-coding DNA does indeed have function, but it is still very clear that large genomes contain a significant amount of function-less, or "junk", DNA.

 

2 hours ago, Uber Genius said:

I am willing.

This is a busy week and I will be spending the Spring Break week with my family next week, but this sounds fun and I may start a new thread steelmanning opposing views after that. Good idea!

[The Barbarian]

10 hours ago, Uber Genius said:

Lol. Barbar, did you look at the avatar? Does it remind you of anything? Ever heard of a literary technique known as irony. Look up Wile E Coyote and it may help.

It was meant as a compliment, not as complement.

10 hours ago, Uber Genius said:

agreed that Catholic doctrine has swung over to the TE side recently, despite greater evidence to the contrary.

Two errors there.   First Catholic doctrine remains open.   One can accept or reject the evidence for evolution, and remain in good stead as a Catholic.   Even if a Pope or theological commission should express an opinion, it is not doctrine unless given ex cathedra, or by the bishops in council.    Second, the evidence for macroevolutionary theory, as even informed YE creationists admit, is very good.

10 hours ago, Uber Genius said:

It is a problem to read back current science into a book that had little to do with science, and when it does present things regarding the natural world does so with the view in mind of God operating outside the physical constraints. 

It's true that Genesis was never meant to be a scientific work, describing how God did things.  But it does mention that God used nature to produce life.  So there is that.   That has nothing to do with evolution, of course; the Bible neither supports nor rejects evolution as the way God produced the variety of living things.   We do have His word that creation is a good guide to His work:

Romans 1:20  For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

10 hours ago, Uber Genius said:

But I do think TE is a live option and as science progresses and the strangle-hold on academia is loosened, we can solve serious problems rather than driving out the researchers that attempt to publish discomfirming results. 

If you think that is so now, you have never been to a poster session at a conference of biologists, or attended readings of papers.

 

Edited March 5, 2020 by The Barbarian

[The Barbarian]

19 hours ago, Uber Genius said:

So when Franscis Collins came out with his book, "Language of God," and showed how some genes in non-coding regions of our DNA were 99% similar to that of mice, including errors of transition, it made no sense if mice weren't the ancestors of humans.

Um, no.   It makes no sense if mice and humans didn't have a common ancestor.

And functionality really doesn't matter, since the odds of the specific code being so close to that of humans still points to common ancestry.   And it's not "working code"; it's broken code that has been recruited for other purposes by natural selection.   It is true, however, that every now and then, some of that broken code mutates in a way that makes it again functional, albeit usually for a different purpose; turns out it's one major source of new genes in organisms .

"New genes can additionally originate de novo from noncoding regions of DNA. Indeed, several novel genes derived from noncoding DNA have recently been described in Drosophila (Begun et al., 2007; Levine et al., 2006). For these recently originated Drosophila genes with likely protein-coding abilities, there are no homologues in any other species. Note, however, that the de novo genes described in various species thus far include both protein-coding and noncoding genes. These new genes sometimes originate in the X chromosome, and they often have male germ-line functions. "

Chandrasekaran , C. & Betrán , E. (2008) Origins of new genes and pseudogenes. Nature Education 1(1):181

 

 

[Uber Genius]

4 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Um, no.   It makes no sense if mice and humans didn't have a common ancestor.

Typing on my phone while on the way to the airport. Yes OBVIOUSLY WE DONT COME FROM MICE.

[Uber Genius]

4 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

And functionality really doesn't matter, since the odds of the specific code being so close to that of humans still points to common ancestry.

That is not Collin's point at all. It is that on evolution we would expect more accumulation of mutations in the non-coding regions and Would predict ancestors with similar "junk DNA" in these regions as oppossed to the genes. So humans would look much more like say chimpanzees and mice than birds or fish. 

 

[Uber Genius]

4 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

  And it's not "working code"; it's broken code that has been recruited for other purposes by natural selection.

"So when Franscis Collins came out with his book, "Language of God," and showed how some genes in non-coding regions of our DNA" these non-coding regions are the gaps between the genes so why are you suggesting that I am referring to working code? You seem to be agreeing with me all the while claiming to correct me. That is not the first time I have seen you STRAWMAN people's posts out here. 

it has been around 15 years since I read Collins' book, I will go look at it later when I get back in town over the weekend. 

By by the way it is no part of "Science" to append "by natural selection," as it begs the question. Every time science backs off of its pronouncements it tries to backfill with these types of slogans which have nothing whatsoever to do with science.

[Uber Genius]

17 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

you think that is so now, you have never been to a poster session at a conference of biologists, or attended readings of papers.

I do think it is so now? Absolutely!

do you think it has changed just because of one conference in the UK where they engaged the serious challenges of the Darwinian inference? Please...

[Uber Genius]

17 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

On March 4, 2020 at 9:20 AM, Uber Genius said:

agreed that Catholic doctrine has swung over to the TE side recently, despite greater evidence to the contrary.

Two errors there.   First Catholic doctrine remains open.   One can accept or reject the evidence for evolution, and remain in good stead as a Catholic.   Even if a Pope or theological commission should express an opinion, it is not doctrine unless given ex cathedra, or by the bishops in council.    Second, the evidence for macroevolutionary theory, as even informed YE creationists admit, is very good.

Referring to what is being taught in Catholic Churches not what is the official set of beliefs that MUST be affirmed by every Catholic. 

Must you STRAWMAN every comment? 

Here you took a general meaning of "doctrine," "what is being taught," and applied a techical, equivocal meaning, "what must be taught."

tricky, but not generous, or clever.

The pedantic nature of your posts is wearing thin. I have yet to ignore someone on WCF, please try and engage my content and not straw men.

[The Barbarian]

Two errors there.   First Catholic doctrine remains open.   One can accept or reject the evidence for evolution, and remain in good stead as a Catholic.   Even if a Pope or theological commission should express an opinion, it is not doctrine unless given ex cathedra, or by the bishops in council. 

4 hours ago, Uber Genius said:

Referring to what is being taught in Catholic Churches not what is the official set of beliefs that MUST be affirmed by every Catholic. 

You think they teach evolution in Catholic Churches?   Seriously?   No, they don't.    If you have a checkable case to the contrary, I'd be pleased to see the evidence.   What do you have?

It's just a fact; Catholic doctrine takes no stand on evolution, and there are Catholic YE creationists, who are in good standing with the Church, rightfully so.

4 hours ago, Uber Genius said:

Here you took a general meaning of "doctrine," "what is being taught," and applied a techical, equivocal meaning, "what must be taught."

"Doctrine" does have a very specific meaning in theology, but you're also wrong in supposing that it's taught as truth in Catholic Churches.   

4 hours ago, Uber Genius said:

The pedantic nature of your posts is wearing thin.

I'm just showing you what's true.  

 

6 hours ago, Uber Genius said:

Typing on my phone while on the way to the airport. Yes OBVIOUSLY WE DONT COME FROM MICE.

Nor does the data from genetics suggest that.   It merely shows we and mice have a common ancestor.

And yes, tenured scientists do from time to time challenge Darwinian theory, and live to tell about it...

Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2012 Aug 19;367(1600):2294-303

The social selection alternative to sexual selection.

Roughgarden J

 

4 hours ago, Uber Genius said:

do you think it has changed just because of one conference in the UK where they engaged the serious challenges of the Darwinian inference?

No, I think so, because from time to time, scientists challenge, in published journals, Darwinian theory.

 

 

Edited March 5, 2020 by The Barbarian

[The Barbarian]

6 hours ago, Uber Genius said:

"So when Franscis Collins came out with his book, "Language of God," and showed how some genes in non-coding regions of our DNA" these non-coding regions are the gaps between the genes

Actually, they aren't "gaps."  It's just DNA that doesn't happen to code for protein (which is what coding DNA does)  However, it can have other functions.   Non-coding DNA includes "junk DNA" that does nothing useful, and functional non-coding DNA that does do things.

Non-coding DNA sequences are components of an organism's DNA that do not encode protein sequences. Some non-coding DNA is transcribed into functional non-coding RNA molecules (e.g. transfer RNA, ribosomal RNA, and regulatory RNAs). Other functions of non-coding DNA include the transcriptional and translational regulation of protein-coding sequences, scaffold attachment regions, origins of DNA replication, centromeres and telomeres.

The amount of non-coding DNA varies greatly among species. Often, only a small percentage of the genome is responsible for coding proteins, but an increasing percentage is being shown to have regulatory functions. When there is much non-coding DNA, a large proportion appears to have no biological function, as predicted in the 1960s. Since that time, this non-functional portion has controversially been called "junk DNA".^[1]

The international Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) project uncovered, by direct biochemical approaches, that at least 80% of human genomic DNA has biochemical activity.^[2] Though this was not necessarily unexpected due to previous decades of research discovering many functional non-coding regions,^[3][4] some scientists criticized the conclusion for conflating biochemical activity with biological function.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-coding_DNA