I can’t answer your question as written, because I don’t know what evangelical theologians have accepted. I’m a Catholic.
Ann Gauger's latest salvo against Dennis Venema's arguments against an original pair of human beings
1 Like
The flexibility of evolution is an area of intense current study in molecular evolutionary biology. The last few years have seen an explosion in our knowledge of evolutionary trajectories, gleaned from both experimental evolution and from real-world evolution and resulting from the availability of genetic sequence data in vast amounts. One outcome is a new understanding of the centrality of epistasis, now known to be so pervasive in genetics as to be a major topic in protein evolution. How flexible is evolution? Pretty flexible. There’s a lot we still don’t know.
However, we do know quite well that protein evolution is a story of constraints (that can close off known evolutionary pathways, at least at certain times) and of flexibility/robustness (that can present multiple trajectories through protein space, at least at certain times). It is a plain fact that we KNOW that there are multiple paths through sequence space for many of the proteins that have been deeply studied. The justification for @Chris_Falter’s basic claim is essentially the corpus of the literature of protein evolution, literally hundreds of papers. I offer a small number of recent selections below, but anyone familiar with the work of Dan Tawfik, Claus Wilke, Alexey Kondrashov, and most especially Joe Thornton knows this very well already.
Recent papers about evolutionary trajectories in proteins:
Alternative evolutionary histories in the sequence space of an ancient protein by the Thornton group, published last month in Nature.
De Novo Evolutionary Emergence of a Symmetrical Protein Is Shaped by Folding Constraints
Pervasive degeneracy and epistasis in a protein-protein interface
Epistasis as the primary factor in molecular evolution
Finally, Dr. Gauger mentioned that she doesn’t have a personal copy of Andreas Wagner’s very nice book. Fortunately, the ideas in the book have been published in numerous research articles and review pieces by Wagner, most of which are open access and all of which are linked on his website. This review at TREE is a great overview.
2 Likes
Ahhh… I see.
But now I’m puzzled by something else. If the Roman Catholic church is well known to have accepted “Old Earth Evolution”, how does your personal position different from the Roman Catholic position? Or does it?
I do not see how you are attempting to address the standard model.
For example, in your 2011 paper
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2011.1/BIO-C.2011.1
You claim that your Figure 1 is a structure-space mapping of the evolutionary his- tory of a hypothetical enzyme family. However, that looks nothing like any enzyme family I have seen.
There are no duplications. Every enzyme has a single function that does not overlap with the function of any other enzyme, with only a single exception with slight overlap.
I have never seen a real enzyme family like that. Have you?
1 Like
[quote=“gbrooks9, post:129, topic:36790”]
how does your personal position different from the Roman Catholic position?
[/quote] Believe it or not there is no one Roman Catholic position. Roman Catholics, or Catholics as we like to call ourselves, are free to believe in evolutionary creationism, in intelligent design,: they are free to believe in old earth or young earth, standard evolutionary model, whatever. The only thing they’re not free to believe is that God did not create the world . Oh, and one other thing. Roman Catholics believe in monogenism. Which means that we came from Adam and Eve. They are our two first parents. There is some debate within the Church. But it is still official Church teaching.
Before anyone asks, I didn’t set out in this to prove that the church was right in its teaching. I set out to find out How strong the scientific evidence was against the first set of parents. That was the question that was posed to me.
I began by studying Ayala then moved onto reading other literature in population genetics. I believe that if the work is carefully done and without prejudice we will be able to find out the truth. My hope is our model will contribute to that.
1 Like
I probably shouldn’t even bother trying to respond to you. But I’ll give it a go. Figure one is meant to illustrate some of the possibilities there are in sequence and functional space for protein families—the tracks they might take in evolutionary time. The point is if function does not overlap there has to be a jump in function between one protein function and another, in other words an innovation. t’s not meant to represent a real family. The point of the figure is that in order for interconversion to happen there has to be an overlap in function or a jump. Figure one does not illustrate a real protein family… It’s not meant to.
As to the tone of the rest of your question, it’s clear you’ve already made up your mind not to believe anything I say So no point to this conversation.
[quote=“sfmatheson, post:128, topic:36790”]
However, we do know quite well that protein evolution is a story of constraints (that can close off known evolutionary pathways, at least at certain times) and of flexibility/robustness (that can present multiple trajectories through protein space, at least at certain times). It is a plain fact that we KNOW that there are multiple paths through sequence space for many of the proteins that have been deeply studied. The justification for @Chris_Falter’s basic claim is essentially the corpus of the literature of protein evolution, literally hundreds of papers. I offer a small number of recent selections below, but anyone familiar with the work of Dan Tawfik, Claus Wilke, Alexey Kondrashov, and most especially Joe Thornton knows this very well already.
[/quote]I am familiar with the work of Alexey Kondrashov, Dan Tawfik, and of course Joe Thornton, not so much with Claus Wilke. I aware of the importance of epistasis. It is one of the main reasons paths are limited. I will take a look at your papers and see if there is anything new in them.
But perhaps you misunderstood I was not so much concerned with how flexible proteins are in their trajectories. I was concerned with how easily an organism can create a new pathway where there was none. How innovation takes place. It’s one thing to be recruited to a new function if you already have that function in part. It’s another Thing to create a pathway to a new function without direction.
2 Likes
@agauger :
Well, 1) I was Baptized a Catholic. So I’m certainly aware of the diversity of beliefs within the Catholic Church.
And 2), I do believe you are over-stating the status of these variations. The position of the Church is not to say “whatever”. The Vatican endorses:
A. Speciation through Common Descent - - at the very least, for non-human life.
B. Speciation over millions of years.
C. And, as you say, that all humanity descends from Adam & Eve.
I am hazy on whether their position includes the idea that all humanity can ALSO have other universal human pair ancestors. I would assume it does.
The context of your discussions here strike me as being centered around a Young Earth scenario. Would that be fair to say?
Ah, I see. I thought the context was the protein evolution work you published in Bio-Complexity.
Wagner writes extensively about innovation, but so do many others. Gunter Wagner (unrelated AFAIK) is another. And you might be very interested in the new work on de novo gene birth; this is a subfield that has suddenly gained momentum in just the last few years.
BTW, I think it’s great that you have come to this forum to discuss, and your grace is uncommon. For what it’s worth.
9 Likes
Do you have any examples where Science should not be the authority to judge scientific matters? I’m not of course referring to say scientists who speak on what our country should do to combat say anthropogenic climate change-those would be political solutions where politicians need to weigh in.
You’ve got to correct me if I’m mistaken as I’m very pessimistic that your organization would ever change its mind. Meaning they way I see it, you have a large base of people who are interested in your material and for you to come out and affirm the theory of evolution or the standard scientific model of human origins instantly means a large rejection from much of your fan base.
But then the second question is… what qualifies something as ‘good enough’ to reconsider reinterpreting a single verse in the Bible? How many experiments… that all are pointing the same way must be done to be good enough? What kind of error bars do we need to have? Why not be ultra sensitive to other religious texts and their main interpretations? Science is not going to do this regardless of what you or anybody else thinks. They will keep doing science.
Okay… go on… and quoting the pope I think is certainly fine. I think you’d be pleasantly surprised most Christians here don’t think the pope and Roman Catholicism are demonic like most evangelicals.
Ah okay, back to the original point. So you are arguing that we should let theologians and philosophers help interpret genomic inquiries into human populations? The topic is very complex and it is a scientific question… only. Sure, it has implications for how to read a 2000 year old text but this is insane to again… hold the Bible (and not just the Bible but a particular interpretation thereof) over the heads of geneticists.
2 Likes
[> quote=“gbrooks9, post:134, topic:36790”]
Well, 1) I was Baptized a Catholic. So I’m certainly aware of the diversity of beliefs within the Catholic Church.
And 2), I do believe you are over-stating the status of these variations. The position of the Church is not to say “whatever”. The Vatican endorses:
A. Speciation through Common Descent - - at the very least, for non-human life.
B. Speciation over millions of years.
C. And, as you say, that all humanity descends from Adam & Eve.
I am hazy on whether their position includes the idea that all humanity can ALSO have other universal human pair ancestors. I would assume it does.
The context of your discussions here strike me as being centered around a Young Earth scenario. Would that be fair to say?
[/quote]
- Congratulations on being baptized Catholic. That does not make you an expert in the Church’s teaching, especially if you were baptized as an infant, and have done no further study.
2.What level of Vatican document do you refer to? There have been a few from low level organizations in the Church, but for a definitive statement it must come from an encyclical. The last encyclical to deal with the subject was Humani Generis, which stated, (Humani Generis (1950):
"36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter – for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.
Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.
37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is no no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.
For a full explication of the history of the Church’s attitude toward evolution, including currently, I recommend Fr. Michael Chaberek’s book Catholicism and Evolution.
Your question about other parentage for humanity is answered above.
I have already said, and say it again that I do not hold to a young earth scenario. It raises too many scientific difficulties, even for me 
The Catholic Church is historically very slow-moving on issues of doctrine and morals. One might even say it’s glacial. The debate is on, however. Mine is a minority opinion among scholars. Evolution is taught in the schools as accepted fact, which it should not be, based on Humani generis. “Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts.” It certainly should be taught, but with arguments both for and against, including arguments for design.
1 Like
Do you have any examples where Science should not be the authority to judge scientific matters? I’m not of course referring to say scientists who speak on what our country should do to combat say anthropogenic climate change-those would be political solutions where politicians need to weigh in.
Theologians should not dictate to scientists, or scientists to theologians. They should talk together. And neither group should assume they have a corner on the market for truth.
You’ve got to correct me if I’m mistaken as I’m very pessimistic that your organization would ever change its mind. Meaning they way I see it, you have a large base of people who are interested in your material and for you to come out and affirm the theory of evolution or the standard scientific model of human origins instantly means a large rejection from much of your fan base.
We see evidence of design in nature. We see things that design can explain and evolution cannot. We think many biologists are already doing design science when they look for the function of new proteins, or expect systems to work together. We think a design heuristic will reveal new research avenues, or new ways of looking at existing research.
Biology shows evidence of being the handiwork of a genius, not a madman. Just consider the genetic code.
Do we think evolution has nothing to do with things? No. But when an evolutionary path must cross a distance of 3 or 4 neutral mutations before selectable function appears, that path is beyond the reach of probabilistic resources. Hence my question above about the “connectedness” of protein search space, and our research into what is within reach on 1 or 2 mutations.
Pessimistic? I would say you are cynical about what we would or would not do. I believe in Truth. I will not serve a lie.
When I got into ID research, I knew what I was up against–giants and fortified cities. I know what NIH and NSF are. I have met Noble prize winners, and many other very smart people who are convinced by evolution. But evolution doesn’t have all the answers. And here’s the key–I don’t think it ever will.
Just consider the origin of animal body plans. Development is a complex, marvelous dance, with communication sparking development of new forms or cell types, and resulting in remarkable functional organs or bodies. We know pieces of how it is done, what genes are involved, how they interact, but not the global picture. And it seems to me that you can’t develop an organism piecemeal. It’s either functional or it’s not, and it has to stay functional the whole way. How does one assemble the developmental gene regulatory network necessary for Cambrian life, before any Cambrian life existed? Yet that is what is proposed. It looks like foresight and planning to me.
Yeah but…
[quote=“agauger, post:138, topic:36790”]
Theologians should not dictate to scientists,[/quote]
Right?
Evolution is taught in the schools as accepted fact, which it should not be, based on Humani generis.
I should have been clearer, I was speaking of Catholic schools.
Ann,
Thank you very much for engaging so many skeptics here. I won’t engage you myself, since I literally know nothing about the scientific side of this topic and I don’t believe in disguising ignorance as knowledge. I’m impressed, frankly, that you’ve devoted as much time as you have to engaging this group of BL people. I only wish that you and others at Discovery would have a means for similar engagement on ENV and the main Discovery site. But, I understand why that would be difficult and frustrating. When I do speaking engagements, I often have to field off-the-wall attacks on Christianity in general or some set of ideas held by a given group of Christians to which I might not belong (sometimes framed in the form of questions that are still unrelated to anything I said in my talk). I do my best not to show exasperation, but sometimes it happens anyway.
Let me share with the BL people that I had lunch with Ann (and a few of her colleagues) in Seattle several years ago, and wholly enjoyed the conversation around the table. I especially appreciate Ann’s deep personal commitment to Christian faith and her desire to make sense of it in light of science. Anyone who shares that combination should applaud Ann’s courage in speaking out to the best of her ability, whether or not she’s right about every scientific detail–something I have no ability to evaluate in this instance.
I won’t add further comments to this thread for reasons already stated.
8 Likes
Why should Catholic schools be any different? Theologians shouldn’t dictate to scientists in those schools either. Science should be taught in science class, and theology should be taught in theology class, and theology should not be taught as science, and reliable conclusions of science should not be subordinated to theology.
This, for example.
That might have been halfway excusable in the 1950s, but it’s absolutely inexcusable now.
2 Likes
That might have been halfway excusable in the 1950s, but it’s absolutely inexcusable now.
Jonathan, do you have a religious commitment? Of what sort? Does science trump everything in your faith?
Is it inexcusable to take the greatest care and caution in considering issues dealing with these matters? There are a lot of Christian doctrines which flow from the historical Adam and Eve. These arguments have been made in many books, including Dennis and Scot’s. The arguments are made because they matter.
Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved
Well, I for one don’t think the origin of the human body is already certain and proved. So it doesn’t seem out of date to me.
1 Like
For the moment, let’s spare you any accusations of being potentially presumptuous of you to suggest that I have not studied the origins of my infant baptism and other Catholic dogma. There are many more people baptized Catholic than who actually understand Catholicism. So I won’t make a point about it.
Frankly, I was relatively stunned that you were actually willing to state your positions at all. Let me itemize them, as best I can, for the sake of others who might not have had a chance to follow the intricacies of your discussions. And, of course, if I mis-state something, I encourage you to correct my wording. But for the most part, I will try to stick with your own wording:
-
“I have already said, and say it again that I do not hold to a young earth scenario. It raises too many scientific difficulties, even for me…”
-
“Mine is a minority opinion among scholars. Evolution is taught in the schools as accepted fact, which it should not be…”
-
“Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts.”
-
“It certainly should be taught, but with arguments both for and against, including arguments for design.”
Important Notice: I just discovered this subsequent post:
Let me make some relevant edits:
So, in these positions, I still wonder what exactly you are disputing?
Analysis:
A) You do not adhere to Intelligent Design, and yet you don’t seem to be criticizing BioLogos for believing God had an important role in Evolution.
B) So it would seem the thing you don’t like about the way Evolution is taught in Catholic Schools … Why? Do they teach something that is wholly different from your view? You say yourself that you reject Intelligent Design? So… you are an Old Earth Evolutionist, yes?
D) So when you say “the debate is on” … what exactly are we debating - - say, between you and me? Are we debating the wisdom of the separation of Church and State? Because that doesn’t seem like much of a controversey here in this little corner of the Christian community.
Is there some other “debate” that you think you are pursuing?
Ironically, in a post much earlier you attempted to say that the Catholic Church doesn’t have one position. I suggested otherwise. And now you are disputing a Catholic position.
So… I think we can all agree that while there are many different voices under the Catholic umbrella, the Catholic Church leaves very few corners of discussion as a “Whatever!” blank slate.
I still don’t really understand what exactly the Catholic “majority position” is that you oppose?
[Heavily Revised to reflect her clarification about Catholic Schools.]
As someone who has certainly spent more than one sunny day, metaphysically wrestling with @Jonathan_Burke about some of his positions, I can assure you that he has done a very interesting job of showing how parts of the Bible, in ways wholly different from the usual YEC foolishness, can surprinsgly fit the Evolutionary model for the origins of Humanity.
While we all know the story of Noah’s Ark seems to have been corrupted in one way or another, Jonathan does a good job showing that the original version of the story goes to explain several confusions that YEC’s perpetuate about the days of Adam and Eve.
Since Jonathan has lots more than just one trick pony he can bring out, let’s narrow the field. What would you say is the key difference between Jonathan’s view of Genesis and your view?
I think I could help explain his views in ways that are difficult for him to do so. But I feel confident I can be of help here, because otherwise I would still be disputing some of these points with him. I have stopped, because in his strange and insightful way - - he has made a persuasive case for his position!
2 Likes
Where did you get the idea that I don’t adhere to intelligent design? What I don’t adhere to his young earth creationism or evolutionary creationism. Is it perhaps because I said I was not YEC that you thought I was not ID? Then you have the two categories confused.
1 Like