Chance and necessity do not explain the origin of life

Cell Biol. Int / Pubmed ^ | 01/06/05 | Trevors JT, Abel DL.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Where and how did the complex genetic instruction set programmed into DNA come into existence? The genetic set may have arisen elsewhere and was transported to the Earth. If not, it arose on the Earth, and became the genetic code in a previous lifeless, physical-chemical world. Even if RNA or DNA were inserted into a lifeless world, they would not contain any genetic instructions unless each nucleotide selection in the sequence was programmed for function. Even then, a predetermined communication system would have had to be in place for any message to be understood at the destination. Transcription and translation would not necessarily have been needed in an RNA world. Ribozymes could have accomplished some of the simpler functions of current protein enzymes. Templating of single RNA strands followed by retemplating back to a sense strand could have occurred. But this process does not explain the derivation of "sense" in any strand. "Sense" means algorithmic function achieved through sequences of certain decision-node switch-settings. These particular primary structures determine secondary and tertiary structures. Each sequence determines minimum-free-energy folding propensities, binding site specificity, and function. Minimal metabolism would be needed for cells to be capable of growth and division. All known metabolism is cybernetic--that is, it is programmatically and algorithmically organized and controlled.

[VadeRetro]

Your story has evolved a bit. You got it that mainstream science isn't agonizing over "Where are the gap fossils?" Right? We have about the fossil record our current models of evolution and geology predict. There is a creationist mantra that "Science is still looking for the missing link." Well, science is always looking for another fossil, yes. That never ends.

There's a pretty strong evidentiary basis for the mainstream versions of language evolution, plate tectonics, the age of the Earth, and geology as well. In the event of any conflict between the established version of events and the somewhat parallel versions you list, the mainstream version has the virtue of being supported by evidence. For one example, by mainstream scientific accounts the breakup of the last supercontinent occurred long [as in millions of years] before the emergence of man on the Earth. In fact, quite a lot of Earth's history occurs before then.

I encourage you to synthesize and reconcile all you can, but realize that science follows the evidence and won't even meet you halfway.

[VadeRetro]

Her rample talents are breathtaking.

[StJacques]

"Uh... you missed something!"

I didn't miss anything. The Pope is using scientific language, which means the Theory of Evolution must remain a theory that is potentially disprovable, otherwise it is not scientific. When the Pope speaks of "theories" of evolution (plural), he is speaking of material and spiritual theories.

Since it seems that some will challenge the presentation I have made of the views of Pope John Paul II and the Catholic Church on the Theory of Evolution I think it would be helpful for me to give a full presentation and commentary on the Pope's address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, taking it from beginning to end:

After some general opening remarks, the Pope begins by stating that the Catholic Church sees no conflict between the Theory of Evolution and the doctrine of faith and warns theologians not to use Scripture to support scientific theory. I begin quoting the Pope from #3, underline emphasis is mine:

". . . Before offering you several reflections that more specifically concern the subject of the origin of life and its evolution, I would like to remind you that the magisterium of the Church has already made pronouncements on these matters within the framework of her own competence. I will cite here two interventions.

In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points.

For my part, when I received those taking part in your academy's plenary assembly on October 31, 1992, I had the opportunity with regard to Galileo to draw attention to the need of a rigorous hermeneutic for the correct interpretation of the inspired word. It is necessary to determine the proper sense of Scripture, while avoiding any unwarranted interpretations that make it say what it does not intend to say. In order to delineate the field of their own study, the exegete and the theologian must keep informed about the results achieved by the natural sciences . . ."

As used above, an "exegete" is one who explains or interprets Scripture. And recognizing that there is "no conflict" between the Theory of Evolution and Scripture is important for what follows.

The Pope continues by reciting the historical context of Pope Pius XII's original encyclical of 1950 and the way in which it treats the Theory of Evolution. The Catholic Church was then instructed to treat it as a "serious hypothesis," that was to be examined on an equal basis with opposing hypotheses, but within two imposed conditions that restricted the scope of the investigation; that evolution could never be accepted as totally proven (which is compatible with its presentation as a "scientific" theory) and that it could not totally disprove revelation:

". . . Taking into account the state of scientific research at the time as well as of the requirements of theology, the encyclical Humani Generis considered the doctrine of "evolutionism" a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in-depth study equal to that of the opposing hypothesis. Pius XII added two methodological conditions: that this opinion should not be adopted as though it were a certain, proven doctrine and as though one could totally prescind from revelation with regard to the questions it raises. . . ."

The Pope then states that, in the almost fifty years since the encyclical of Pius XII, continuing developments in science had established the Theory of Evolution as "more than a hypothesis" and that this new knowledge had brought together various scientific disciplines together to support the theory, a convergence that was "neither sought nor fabricated," and which in and of itself gives significant support to the Theory of Evolution:

". . . Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. . . . It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory. . . ."

After some intervening comments in which the Pope discusses the epistemological importance of treating the Theory of Evolution as a scientific theory that falls within "natural philosophy" that must be handled with proper application of scientific method, the Pope then postulates three "theories" of evolution that should be considered: the "materialist," which is the Theory of Evolution itself; the "reductionist," which deals with an examination of the scientific theories upon which the Theory of Evolution is based; and the "spiritual," which falls entirely outside materialist philosophy (and by implication I would argue, defining a proper role within which the Catholic Church can participate in the debate):

". . . And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution. On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based. Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist and spiritualist interpretations. What is to be decided here is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology. . . ."

At this point the Pope pronounces the spiritual basis for the dignity of man as derived from God (This is a portion of what you quoted Elsie and I think you misunderstood it to be a statement in opposition to the Theory of Evolution, which it is not, as subsequent content will make clear):

". . . The Church's magisterium is directly concerned with the question of evolution, for it involves the conception of man: Revelation teaches us that he was created in the image and likeness of God (cf. Gn 1:27-29). The conciliar constitution Gaudium et Spes has magnificently explained this doctrine, which is pivotal to Christian thought. It recalled that man is "the only creature on earth that God has wanted for its own sake" (No. 24). In other terms, the human individual cannot be subordinated as a pure means or a pure instrument, either to the species or to society; he has value per se. He is a person. With his intellect and his will, he is capable of forming a relationship of communion, solidarity and self-giving with his peers. St. Thomas observes that man's likeness to God resides especially in his speculative intellect, for his relationship with the object of his knowledge resembles God's relationship with what he has created (Summa Theologica I-II:3:5, ad 1). But even more, man is called to enter into a relationship of knowledge and love with God himself, a relationship which will find its complete fulfillment beyond time, in eternity. All the depth and grandeur of this vocation are revealed to us in the mystery of the risen Christ (cf. Gaudium et Spes, 22). It is by virtue of his spiritual soul that the whole person possesses such a dignity even in his body. . . ."

Now the Pope arrives at what I believe is the central point of view of the Catholic Church on evolution. It is immediately after making the case that the spiritual dignity of man flows from God (as just cited above), that the Pope then makes clear that any theory which places the material origins of man in "pre-existent living matter" cannot be taken to affect any question of the "spiritual" origins of the human soul:

". . . Pius XII stressed this essential point: If the human body take its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God ("animas enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides nos retinere iubei"; "Humani Generis," 36). Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person. . . ."

It is thus that the Catholic Church makes clear that the Theory of Evolution deals with the material side of human development and cannot be taken as affecting the spiritual development of mankind in any way nor can it be viewed as conflicting with that spiritual development.

Before he closed his remarks the Pope made a couple of other points that help to frame the context within which evolution must be addressed from the perspective of the Catholic Church, specifically, that there must remain an epistemological consistency that separates study of man's material history from his spiritual history:

". . . With man, then, we find ourselves in the presence of an ontological difference, an ontological leap, one could say. However, does not the posing of such ontological discontinuity run counter to that physical continuity which seems to be the main thread of research into evolution in the field of physics and chemistry? Consideration of the method used in the various branches of knowledge makes it possible to reconcile two points of view which would seem irreconcilable. The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition to the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation, which nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being. . . ."

And the Pope immediately follows this statement with a comment that points to metaphysical inquiry as the proper epistemological approach, whether within philosophy or theology, to discuss God:

". . . But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-awareness and self-reflection, of moral conscience, freedom, or again of aesthetic and religious experience, falls within the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection, while theology brings out its ultimate meaning according to the Creator's plans. . . ."

And as a final point the Pope turns to the definition of life itself from the spiritual viewpoint:

". . . It is significant that in St. John's Gospel life refers to the divine light which Christ communicates to us. We are called to enter into eternal life, that is to say, into the eternity of divine beatitude. To warn us against the serious temptations threatening us, our Lord quotes the great saying of Deuteronomy: "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" (Dt 8:3; cf. Mt 4:4). Even more, "life" is one of the most beautiful titles which the Bible attributes to God. He is the living God. . . ."

In all of the above I believe I have given a fair and accurate presentation and commentary on the viewpoint of the Pope John Paul II and the Catholic Church with respect to the Theory of Evolution. If you read his address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences carefully you may understand why many Roman Catholics, such as myself, are not in any way threatened by the Theory of Evolution -- and I could add by the Theory of Abiogenesis. From our viewpoint, the attack on the Theory of Evolution as running contrary to Christian doctrine demeans the spiritual essence of mankind by attempting to unite the material and spiritual development of humanity into one common history. I submit, by my religious faith as a Christian and a practicing Roman Catholic, that the two are separate and distinct.

[Elsie]

While connecting the dots, they seem to move from time to time.


Various 'parts' of ToE, when looked at closely, appear as thought they MIGHT work, then stepping back, appear not to.

Vast amounts of WORDS stating how something 'could have, might have, seems to have, would have', adjusted to environmental pressures to get to point A from point B when NO experiments with large animals have shown ANY of this concept to be true.

With the amount of time between transitions being claimed, then if evo STILL works at the same rate, MANY creatures today should be half-way to something else.

Trotting out the 'lookee here' charts showing that animal B shares dna with an 'older' animal A somehow PROVES that the 'newer' came from the 'older' makes as much sense as using a Periodic Table to show linkages as well.

[Elsie]

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life....

This must be the third rail of Evolution: NO Evo will touch it!

---

What do we then call someone who claims that life sprang, somehow, from non-life?

---

(Or is it Alien-seeds; all the way down????)

[Elsie]

Kinda the same....


We are told to accept the Brother whose faith is weak.


(Hey! We ALL get 'weak' from time to time!)

[Elsie]

Sure........


KEEPING an organism alive is SO much simpler than forming new ones, Evolution should have come across this 'solution' by now.

[Elsie]

Dots ok den...............


........................................................
........................................................
........................................................
........................................................
........................................................
........................................................
........................................................
........................................................
........................................................
........................................................
........................................................
........................................................
........................................................
........................................................
........................................................
........................................................
........................................................
........................................................
........................................................
........................................................
........................................................
........................................................
........................................................
........................................................
........................................................

Connect away. See what YOU come up with!

[PatrickHenry]

Excellent post. I've been trying to make that point for a few years around here, and I often post links to, and excerpts from, that statement. But you've done it better than I ever did. (I also like to elaborate on the Pope's brief mention of Galileo, because the Church seems to have adopted Galileo's position on resolving apparent conflicts between science and scripture.)

[general_re]

Let's work on that Eternal Life thing a bit more: the natives are getting restless.

That was done ages ago - asexually reproducing protists and bacteria will quite happily live forever unless something kills them. They don't die of old age.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your analysis of the Pope's statement concerning the theory of evolution and Catholic doctrine!

However, IMHO, the dispute cannot be reconciled among the various Christian doctrines. Here is my view from an article I wrote some time ago:

What is a [Christian] man?

Because the Christian man is spiritually minded, the best way to communicate with him is by using the Scriptures themselves. He will receive science and other forms of knowledge, but only if they do not conflict with Whom he already knows to be Truth and in Whom he lives:

For the word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. - Hebrews 4:12

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane [and] vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace [be] with thee. Amen... - 1 Timothy 6:20-21

Personal interpretation of Scriptures and sadly, the reliance on the counsel of other men, leads to sincere contention among Christians. One such example is the origin of Adam, whose fall from grace is the need for Christ's propitiation. One side insists that Adam was the first mortal man, the other that he was the first man given a soul - either as fact or as metaphor:

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. - Romans 5:12-14

So also [is] the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:

It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit. Howbeit that [was] not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man [is] of the earth, earthy: the second man [is] the Lord from heaven.

As [is] the earthy, such [are] they also that are earthy: and as [is] the heavenly, such [are] they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. - I Corinthians 15:42-48

A belief that Adam was the first mortal man leads to the conclusion of young earth creationism. A belief that he was the first soulful man is compatible with intelligent design and theistic evolution.

In either case, the understanding itself may become part of the Christian's worldview and, if so, it will constitute a firm boundary which cannot be broached by any non-Spiritual argument to the contrary. In the Christian man's worldview, a core belief is more important than mortal life.

[judywillow]

Judy, did you notice how the debate dramatically deteriorated after you posted your question? I sure did, and I thank you for posting it.

I'm beginning to suspect that the real question which evolutionists need to answer is, how did the pink flamingo evolve?

[Elsie]

                                            _

                                             \

                                             |

                                             |

                                             |

                                              \

-4 billion years....                           ->    Origin of Life              (The TRICKY part!)

                                              /

                                             |

                                             |

                                             |

                                            _/

[Elsie]

"Several theories of Evolution" - not One.

---

no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation,

 

This does NOT say,

 

no opposition between evolution and the CREATION of  man....

 

 

 

Likewise, THIS is TRUE:

 

no opposition between evolution APPLES and the doctrine of the faith ORANGES

 

 

[Elsie]

Then why do chipmunks???

[Elsie]

how did the pink flamingo evolve? 

 

 

 

 

 

No, NO, NO!!!!

 

 

 

 

Into WHAT did the pink flamingo evolve?  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ezekiel 16:49-50
 49.  "`Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.
 50.  They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

 

[Elsie]

Gosh!

Red and lavender fonts!

(I sure hope SOMEONE is happy now!)

[general_re]

Chipmunks don't reproduce asexually.

[StJacques]

"Excellent post. I've been trying to make that point for a few years around here, and I often post links to, and excerpts from, that statement. But you've done it better than I ever did. (I also like to elaborate on the Pope's brief mention of Galileo, because the Church seems to have adopted Galileo's position on resolving apparent conflicts between science and scripture.)"

Thanks. One of the things that I think is very important about the Pope's address (my post #503 above) is that he treats the controversy over the Theory of Evolution as a "two way street" affecting both religiously-minded Christians and those proponents of the Theory of Evolution who believe that the evidence supporting it disproves the possibility of the existence of God. Even though there are moments when I find myself piqued at what I consider flawed reasoning presented by some Creationists arguing against the Theory of Evolution, I always try to treat them with some modicum of dignity, because I sympathize with the fact that they understand that some who support the Theory of Evolution, and I believe many Creationists blow this number out of proportion, also argue that it disproves the existence of God. I assert emphatically that it does not and the Pope's address to the Pontifical Academy has an answer for those who would argue that it does.

I will always be prepared to argue that the spiritual dignity of mankind is an absolute truth and I see nothing in the Theory of Evolution that detracts from this.

[Thatcherite]

You are just plain wrong when you say that the ToE hasn't made lots of successful predictions. I say again, read the link that I posted you, Dr Theobald's article that summarises 30 successful predictions in different scientific areas.

In the end if you decide to ignore the evidence that evolution has occurred then you are free to do so.