Adam, Eve and Evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter hecd2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
PhilVaz:
steveb << The scientific consensus is that there are huge gaps between species and groups of species, that there are no common ancestors and no intermediate fossil forms. The “evolutionary tree” is a fiction found only in school textbooks. You’re begging your case rather than providing evidence. >>

You got to be kidding me. Don’t rely on creationist nonsense.
Click to expand...
Phil,

That quote was to refer to apes becomming man. Where is the intermediate fossil form that bridges the 23 pair chromosome man with the 24 pair chromosome ape?
 
40.png
PhilVaz:
You got to be kidding me. Don’t rely on creationist nonsense. Go to a library (as I have), check out a book on paleontology (as I have), and you will find (for example, from Carroll’s Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution)
Click to expand...
As a follow up,

Here is pure science talking.
#1
Evolutionary similarities with apes didn’t come through inbreeding
science.ca/askascientist/viewquestion.php?qID=72

#2
“b) The amount of molecular difference is only a part of the story. We may differ by less than 2% of our DNA from other apes, but WOW! what a 2%. If we apply standard scientific practice, I think it is safe to say that ANY human can look at the critter sitting next to him and decide accurately at least 95% of the time, whether that critter is a human or a chimp. So, the
NUMBER of DNA sequence differences are only a part of the story. It clearly matters WHICH DNA sequences are changed (as well as HOW MANY).”
listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9710&L=anthro-l&F=&S=&P=17550

#3
Abbra Ca Dabbra, presto chango, science says Fusion happened. They don’t say HOW it happened, it just happened. :hmmm: Is that good enough for you?
gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html
40.png
PhilVaz:
There are indeed gaps since the fossil record has only been mined the past 200 or so years, but there are dozens of examples of intermediates in this article by Kathleen Hunt, I double-checked her references to Carroll (Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution) and they are indeed correct.
Click to expand...
It’s the gaps that I’m questioning
40.png
PhilVaz:
Another fantastic example are the walking-whales that have been unearthed the past decade. These are found here on Phil Gingerich’s page and good information here on one of those Ambulocetus Natans (the “walking whale that swims”)

http://www.researchcasting.ca/images/ambulocetus.jpg

Phil P
Click to expand...
As I said before, the author of the quote I posted, a physician BTW, was meant to be directed towards “human” intermediates, with 23 pair of chromosomes, not 24 pair apes. It was not meant to address whether intermediaries in general exist.
 
40.png
PhilVaz:
steveb << Where is the intermediate fossil form that bridges the 23 pair chromosome man with the 24 pair chromosome ape? >>

I don’t know, maybe one of these.
Click to expand...
From that site.

“there are now thousands of hominid fossils. They are however mostly fragmentary, often consisting of single bones or isolated teeth. Complete skulls and skeletons are rare”

Phil, from what they know about skulls today, they have eliminated from consideration, skulls that they once thought to be humanoid, but were merely apes. They need more than fragments to make the case.
40.png
PhilVaz:
Check out this NCSE article responding to creationists on human evolution. Discusses both the DNA evidence and hominid fossils.

Also this article reviews the Lubenow book. I need to study all this stuff myself.

Phil P
Click to expand...
Those articles didn’t answer the question either.
 
steve b:
Phil,

That quote was to refer to apes becomming man. Where is the intermediate fossil form that bridges the 23 pair chromosome man with the 24 pair chromosome ape?
Click to expand...
Huh…isn’t that odd. Genetic material in the fossil record? Very odd. Might you care to explain why you would ask for a question whose premise is fallacious to be answered?

Vindex Urvogel
 
hecd2: To address Galileo first, I think it’s you who needs to do some research on the subject. Galileo’s formulation of Copernican Theory was absolutely false, and provably so. He tried to use the tidal motions to prove that the Earth spun, and it was countered by a churchman that the tides related to the moon, which is the correct answer. The problem was a scientific one, namely that the Copernican system, which was originally supported by the Church incidently, could not be adequately proven in the face of the popular system formulated by Ptolemy and Aristotle. The observatory tools required to adequately prove or disprove the Copernican hypothesis (Copernicus was wrong in many parts, incidently, but correct generally) did not exist for many years after Galileo’s death.

It is true that it was clergy that attacked the Copernican hypothesis, but the Church itself didn’t weigh in on the question for years, and only then warned to treat it as a hypothesis and not a proven theory. Meanwhile Galileo put forth is very flawed argument regarding the tides, and was enjoined to not teach on the subject publically, which he later did anyway. The matter was originally a scientific one, not a matter of faith, despite the attacks on Copernican hypothesis by certain clergy. When Galileo could not demonstrate his hypothesis, and was scientifically proven incorrect in his foundations, he was censured. It only became a matter of faith vs. science much later, after Galileo made perceived attacks on the Pope and Church for not accepting his provably false demonstrations. A good run down and collection of transcripts/letters from a non-Catholic source is:

law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/galileo.html

continued…
 
As for your genetic citations, it will take some time for me to look those up. If you have a link to those resources online it would be greatly appreciated. While I’m not a geneticist by any stretch, I’m very well aquainted with its fundamentals from my medical studies. Simply listing references without explaination of what they contain does little to further your argument, at least on the forum, as most people don’t have the basis of understanding or base of study to extrapolate the details of the articles in question based on your brief summary of them.

Based on my current understanding of heterogenous groups, it is very difficult to narrow down the exact nature of the breeding pool in question based purely on a modern sample. I’d appreciate a more clear example of how this is done if at all possible.
 
Mitochondrial DNA gene permutation studies show we came from one woman, whom scientists nicknamed “Eve.”
 
Vindex Urvogel:
Huh…isn’t that odd. Genetic material in the fossil record? Very odd. Might you care to explain why you would ask for a question whose premise is fallacious to be answered?

Vindex Urvogel
Click to expand...
Thanks for asking. The premise is, ape becomming man using fossil fragments to support the premise. As you point out fossils have no genetic material by definition. Therefore, the premise, using fossil fragments sans genetic material, is odd. And that’s the point.
 
I agree with Steve B that the pure evolutionists have not made their case. But I’ll play along. Two points:
  1. Why wouldn’t microevolutionary changes account for the different genetic combinations?
  2. What would prevent God from adding to his creation after he created it? Who would deny Him that power?
 
How about God deciding to “insert” Adam and Eve where he wanted them? Could the fossil record prove or disprove this?
 
That’s just it. God could easily have inserted Adam and Eve into the general pool, or inserted their Souls. In fact, this is *exactly *what Genesis implies happened.

There are two seperate accounts of the creation of humanity, the first is of the race itself in Chapter 1, and the second is specifically of Adam and Eve in Chapter 2. If these are taken as chronological rather than seperate accounts of the same event, then Adam and Eve were indeed created from within the mass of “humanity” and settled in a certain region. Another example of this is that Cain is said to have had relations with his wife, but no other children of Adam and Eve are listed besides him and his fallen brother at that time. Where did his wife come from? Was she his unknown sister? More likely, based on the story progression and genetic evidence is that she was from the mass of humanity that had not yet been set apart from the animals with a Soul.

While I argue about the value of genetic evidence, the truth is that it doesn’t matter on a spiritual level, since Scripture, even taken mostly literally, describes a situation that fits perfectly within the scientific knowledge we have. I just have personal doubts about the nature of genetics that are completely unrelated to Scripture, and I have since I was a strong atheist.
 
40.png
hecd2:
I have heard this hypothesis before and I think it’s interesting and inventive.

However it leads to some difficult genetic, spiritual and ethical problems. The problems relate to how we get from the original two people with souls, embedded in a population without souls, to the human race of 7 billion people today, all of whom have souls.
.
.
.
Another possibility is that those with souls remained within their society and that their offspring (with souls) interbred with those without souls. Their offspring in turn would have souls - eventually souls would fix in the human population, rather like a beneficial mutation. This is fine except for the rather extreme miscagenation during the transition when families would be comprised of members with and without human souls.

There is also the rather difficult cognitive situation for the putative Adam and Eve to face - that their beloved parents and siblings lacked humanity.
Click to expand...
Why would the possibility of those with souls co-existing with those without be so difficult to accept? It’s not so different than God calling Abraham away from his family. Neither situation ‘feels good’ but since when are feelings definitive to either science or theology?

At least the possibility of those with souls interbreeding with those who do not is logically consistant with the statement by Pope Pius XII. (Although I question whether he intended such a meaning.)
 
40.png
Ghosty:
That’s just it. God could easily have inserted Adam and Eve into the general pool, or inserted their Souls. In fact, this is *exactly *what Genesis implies happened.

There are two seperate accounts of the creation of humanity, the first is of the race itself in Chapter 1, and the second is specifically of Adam and Eve in Chapter 2. If these are taken as chronological rather than seperate accounts of the same event, then Adam and Eve were indeed created from within the mass of “humanity” and settled in a certain region. Another example of this is that Cain is said to have had relations with his wife, but no other children of Adam and Eve are listed besides him and his fallen brother at that time. Where did his wife come from? Was she his unknown sister? More likely, based on the story progression and genetic evidence is that she was from the mass of humanity that had not yet been set apart from the animals with a Soul.
Click to expand...
(emphasis added)

Very good point. I never thought of it that way - Thanks!
 
My understanding is that there were other unmentioned children of Adam and Eve and that incestuous relations were OK to procreate, until this was withdrawn by God.
 
40.png
buffalo:
My understanding is that there were other unmentioned children of Adam and Eve and that incestuous relations were OK to procreate, until this was withdrawn by God.
Click to expand...
Where did that understanding come from? :confused: Not from the Magisterium of the Church.
 
Yeah, I thought it was. Genesis 5:3

I believe Pope Pius XII stated this.

Scriptures only mention Eve as the only sexual partner and mother of any descendants for Adam. It follows that the second generation of humans must have been the offspring from sexual unions between sons and daughters of Adam and Eve. In and of itself this was not intrinsically evil, but of necessity.
 
There is no proof one way or another that there were other children of Adam and Eve (aside from Seth), and no doctrinal or dogmatic explaination of this discrepency. It can be read in many ways, but if the story is taken chronilogically and with respect to genetic evidence, then the best explaination is that Adam and Eve were set apart as human in the Catholic sense from among a mass of humanoid animals.
 
My mistake, I forgot about 5:3. That does not, however, prove in any way that there were incestuous relationships between siblings.
 
From the
Code: 
                              **Douay-Rheims Bible**
Chapter 5
The genealogy, age, and death of the Patriarchs, from Adam to Noe. The translation of Henoch.

1 This is the book of the generation of Adam. In the day that God created man, he made him to the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female; and blessed them: and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. 3 And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begot a son to his own image and likeness, and called his name Seth. 4 And the days of Adam, after he begot Seth, were eight hundred years: and he begot sons and daughters. 5 And all the time that Adam lived came to nine hundred and thirty years, and he died.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top