Proteins argue against evolution


If you allow God to guide the progression, then why don’t you allow God to put the same gene, independently, in two separate, unrelated organisms? Why give God a little power but restrict what he can do?

OK, genes can be turned on and off, but they had to originate somehow. That’s the key.


As in we didn’t make them or put them there. CRISPR didn’t do that.

They were already in the animal; a fingerprint of where it came from.

It’s not using this gene, we can cut it out without affecting the Chicken. It’s just there. Unused. Functionally useless.

Not just random, reactive.

Through epegentics, the genome gathers information in small samples, and changes itself overtime.

The diet and exercise routine of a Grandfather, affects the fitness of the grandchild. Expressed over enough generations, the gene expression underwriting this results in a change in the genes themselves.

The genes are reacting to the input coming from human behavior/experience.

The same to animals, plants, microbes, and everything in between.

It is perfectly acceptable for the Deinonychus to become the Chicken, if changing circumstance, diet, & environment compelled that result.

Keep in mind of everything we can get a wild Mustard plant to change into:

So why not nature, with a Dinosaur? Clearly genes are this malleable.

You have to think of branches; what happens when a far flung relative, develops a mutation, or something comes along to compel a change in a certain direction (like how the Sweet Potato developed; its genes were manipulated by a Bacterium. “Nature’s GMO”.)

You can add new genes in the genome & take them away. There’s a Chinese man out there with only 22 Chromosome pairs. Monkeys & apes are separated from us by having just one pair extra.

? The odds do not get worse.

If a structure of ~30 amino acids is already working & self-replicating, it doesn’t have to start from scratch to make a bigger structure incorporating more amino acids over time.

It can iterate from there, slowly building itself up. It doesn’t have to jump from ~30 to a hundred. It can most certainly take smaller steps.

As I pointed out before, peptides eventually gave way to RNA molecules, and from RNA, it’s easy to see how we can get to DNA.

That really isn’t the hardest “next” step, that was the leap from unicellular, to multi-cellular life, as life remained in that state for far longer than anything else.


“Let those who say Adam and Eve were not real individual human people, ANATHEMA.” Can’t remember which encyclical it was in, but THAT is the official and FINAL word on how the Catholic Church views Adam and Eve.


Fortunately, that is not subject to belief.


Except, what I just quoted came from a later to be Pope, which was put out after the announcement you reference. Pope Pius XII’s words, have a caveat, where we can in fact make Polygenisis compatible.

And even if it’s not, the Pope is not infallible on human or scientific events, only matters of Faith.

The only thing the Church maintains, is that the soul could not have evolved.

The Catholic Church has no antagonism with Evolution, and never has:

As to the Divine Design, is it not an instance of incomprehensibly and infinitely marvellous Wisdom and Design to have given certain laws to matter millions of ages ago, which have surely and precisely worked out, in the long course of those ages, those effects which He from the first proposed. Mr. Darwin’s theory need not then to be atheistical, be it true or not; it may simply be suggesting a larger idea of Divine Prescience and Skill. Perhaps your friend has got a surer clue to guide him than I have, who have never studied the question, and I do not [see] that ‘the accidental evolution of organic beings’ is inconsistent with divine design—It is accidental to us, not to God

– John Henry Newman, 1868

According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the ‘Big Bang’ and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5–4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.

– International Theological Commission, 2004


BS. In order to determine that “the chicken has it”, you have to have some ORIGINAL DNA to compare it to, and we don’t HAVE any.


Believe what you want. Belief in the theory of evolution is not a requirement to be a practicing Catholic.


Yes we do Dave.

And we also have fossil evidence showing us where Chickens came from:

Chickens are living dinosaurs. Just like Crocodiles.


It’s not “belief” CT, that’s what you keep missing.

CRISPR would not work, unless biological progression was happening.

Once the science became practical, not just theoretical, you ran out of room to deny it.

You can talk about what you think has guided that Progression, but the fact that progression has happened, is beyond the pale.


Nonsense again, AS. “CRISPR” DOESN’T “work.” It “works” if you have unwavering faith in it, but it ceases working the instant uncertainty raises its head…and it does, to be replaced with “faith.”


Dave, we used it to make animals exhibit dinosaur traits, and done all sorts of things with flies and mice, turning other genes of theirs on:

This is as real as cloning Dolly the Sheep back in 1996. CRISPR is a gene-editing tool that will allow us to fix multitudes of genetic disease. Welcome to the future.


And another thing that might tend to follow the “old earth” rather than 6 six days idea, is that the celestial lights - which were created “to divide the day from the night: and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and for years” - were not created until the fourth day.

Nevertheless, I have no trouble believing that God could certainly have created the earth and everything in it in 6 literal days. I mean, He’s God. He’s not limited by our ability to understand how He could do something.


Do you realize that you’re arguing for intelligent design? A CRISPR is a tool that intelligent agents (scientists) use to modify designs of life.

Fixing genetic diseases? The disease is an increase in disorder that came about naturally. It takes an intelligent agent to return the gene to the higher state of order it came from before natural processes introduced the disorder. You see, the human genome started out in a very high state of order with a lot of redundancy and no diseases. Natural processes have introduced disorder in the thousands of years since.

The truth is the opposite of evolution. Disorder increases except where an intelligent agent injects order and information.


Except the examples I gave, are not them introducing new genes.

It’s about turning genes already in the animal, on & off.

Why are genes from precursor animals the fossil evidence says they’re related to, in them? Because the animals descended from them.

Biological progression occurs. And most of it isn’t due to truly random mutation, but gradual changes in gene expression, due to changes in diet and environment.

Evolution isn’t just a random system, most of the time it’s simply a reactive one. That’s why a criticism of Darwinism, which is all you’ve offered, doesn’t mean much.

We have a human corpse that’s 5,000 years old that would argue otherwise.

He had health problems stemming from a heavy carb diet, he had lyme disease, and had been sick multiple times in the 6 months prior to his death.

The stock of humans has been healthier in the last 100 years than at any point previously, mostly just because people have consistent access to clean water.

Also because we don’t eat uncultivated, wild plants which have trace amounts of arsenic or other poisons.

You forget development in the universe.

The universe went from low to high entropy. We went from simple stars of hydrogen and helium that lasted only a few million years, to smaller stars burning other materials with lifespans in the billions, and gathering heavier elements to form planetoids, gas giants, and other satellites. Along with other forms of stars such as red dwarves, neutron, magnetars and pulsars.

Order increasing is something we see all over.

In terms of Astrophysics, geology, and ecosystems, all of them became more complex overtime, not less, and all without our input.

We’re not a space-faring, terraforming, nature-controlling species yet afterall.


Turning WHAT GENES on and off? Where did those genes come from? How did evolution build them the first time? Are you claiming that some version of all the genes in our bodies today were in simple organisms of long ago? How did your reactive system of evolution react to build new genes against astronomical odds (see the first post for a refresher).

The topic was human genetic diseases, but you switched to ailments that one man had, a heavy carb diet, clean water, and uncultivated plants containing poisons. You switched topics.

When I said “natural processes have introduced disorder in the thousands of years since”, I was clearly discussing disorder in our genome here on earth.

But I suspect a cosmologist or thermodynamicist might disagree with you anyway. The universe is believed to have started out uniformly hot with very low entropy. It only coagulated into stars when it had cooled and scattered enough, meaning when enough entropy had been created.

I missed the reference to that one.


You mean like AS’s view?

I’m the exact opposite of you. I lean toward God did it the way it says (but not dogmatically). It’s well within God’s power to do so. One thing I’m certain of is we really don’t know much about a lot of things. I’m fine with coming up with narratives that try to fit the facts.

I found some of that, but I see where you’re coming from with the church.

I still marvel that anyone who believes in God might scoff at the possibility that God just did it the way it says.

Oh, yeah, good point about Windows btw. I definitely gave you a good analogy to use with this!

Still, all them little things that are a snapshot of a virtual world (incomplete by comparison and not intelligent), like The Old Republic, still demonstrates the point I’m making. All kinds of things in the game have history embedded them that never play out in the course of the game. It’s just part of the history, crafted by its creators, evidence of things and processes and history that never happened. If God created the stars in a night, then the light that should take 1,000 years to reach us was already shining as if it had been 1,000 years.

I found stuff that says just that, but I also found this in the Catechism. Looks to me like Adam and Eve are figurative there.

390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.

Then I find this:

400 The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul’s spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination.282 Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man.283 Because of man, creation is now subject “to its bondage to decay”.284 Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will “return to the ground”,285 for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history.286

AS I find this an odd concept if man evolved. Man died. That’s nature. That’s natural process. But then death entered human history after the fall. How can it make an entrance if man was not immortal? This is a reference to physical death, the “return to the ground.”

Imperfections in creation you mentioned earlier? Those go here: “Because of man, creation is now subject ‘to its bondage to decay’”

Even read figuratively, there seems to be some supernatural stuff going on with nature itself. It seems the church taught and teaches it to this day.

And then Catechism goes on to discuss Adam as one man and Jesus as one man, quoting Scriptures:

402 All men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as St. Paul affirms: “By one man’s disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners”: "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned."289 The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."290

That suggests to me that the Catholic Church viewed Adam as a real individual not a figurative individual representing the evolution of consciousness. Accepting as symbolic the first part seems to require we accept later parts as symbolic, but in my mind, it gets more difficult as we move through Genesis to take it as symbolic.

Who were Cain and Abel? Were they the literal children of individuals named Adam and Eve? Were they just symbolic children of symbolic people, a symbolic story woven to demonstrate the power of a powerful God who will not exercise supernatural power in reality? At what point do you think literal truth begins in the Scriptures? The Exodus? The Judges? The kings of Israel? Jesus Himself? Jesus’ miracles? Jesus’ resurrection? Sauls’ conversion? Paul’s letters?

Edit: Wow, that’s longer than I intended. I’ll go back to steel tariffs later, I guess. Good night folks.


The first example was non-active genes from a completely different animal.

There’s no reason for God to do that if he’s making animals ex nihlio, but there is a reason for those genes to be there, if creatures are developing from other creatures over time, and this is just a loose end from that development.

And we know creatures must develop into other creatures overtime, because of Mass extinctions.

The world was repopulated somehow (several times), and if only the small creatures survived, they must have evolved overtime into the larger ones we see today.

It wasn’t astronomical, odds get better with each successive step for the next step to follow.

Once the self-replicating molecule was formed, chances for the next step happening dramatically increased, not decreased. Until the formation of unicellular organisms, the next few steps in fact happened more quickly.

Evolution is reactive, it shares its work (even between species that don’t normally breed), and the work it does is put into parallel.

Bacteria and viruses manipulate DNA of larger organisms, the organelles of the cell are actually domesticated bacteria, a species can diverge simply from one branch of it changing it diet.

There’s plenty of non-Darwinian mechanisms at work. It isn’t simply randomness.

Fine, I’ll accept that outright, but you’re still wrong here.

We have a higher instance of genetic disease because there’s more people to exhibit it, not because the genome is inherently more sick.

If pure, unaltered genomes were the way to be, asexual reproduction would have been more successful, instead of a marginal mechanism a minority of organisms use.

The genome is made stronger by genetic diversity, not weakened.The diversity was developed in the genome to deal with outside threats.

They wouldn’t because entropy is not the same as disorder, and they recognize the difference between macro states and micro states.

Even as entropy rises in the Macro state (say, the universe), that doesn’t mean micro states can’t form higher points of order.

The formation of rings around a planet, is an example of higher order forming.

So is a seed that grows into a tree.

So are cracks in the mud as it dries, or cracks in rock as it fills gaps in its structure (Giant’s Causeway?).

So is water forming into snowflakes, or icicle structures growing on the ground.

It’s all things in nature, spontaneously forming higher points of order. This isn’t unusual.

The genome doing it isn’t unusual either, because again, through epigenetics, it’s constantly sampling the outside world for some input of what it should change.


That alone puts this to question.

There are stars & galaxies out there that are billions of light years away from us.

They mean, that God not only created the Universe in a way where we was taking a shortcut in creation, but that he also created it as if the past that never was still happened.

The Cosmic background radiation that shows what the Universe was after just 300,000 years? According to you it didn’t happen, but God added it in as windows dressing just for kicks, and ensured the light of it reached us, right on time, as if it did happen.

I reject simplifying the complexity the universe, just to rescue a literal reading of Genesis. That reading isn’t necessary, and it fails to recognize the story’s own ambiguities.


It’s not the way it says that I dispute, but the interpretation thereof. Since scripture does indeed say that to God a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years are as a day, an old Earth is not inconsistant with that. On the other hand, I don’t know that for sure, which is why I said I’m not dogmatic about it; the young Earth scenario might indeed be the truth.

Just to clarify, my points here are in regard to the age of the universe itself; evolution is a separate issue, and I do not believe in evolution.


I missed this one. You made a strong case for intelligent design (ID).

Windows NEVER benefits from mutations. There is no self-replication. There is no natural selection–just selection by intelligent developers and customers. (Even if less intelligent than Linux developers and customers. :slight_smile: )

You are conflating (as all evolutionists do) biological processes and adaption with the mythical advancement to new kinds. The latter never happened. (You said we can’t deny it, but look, I just did.)