Adam. Man or Myth?

[steveandersen]

Originally Posted by Dorothy View Post
In the Encyclical “Humani Generis” we are taught by the Church that the human race began with one man and one woman. (Adam and Eve). Many gloss over this teaching.

Yes but theologians are still interpreting it
See posts #72 and #76

 

[Pryority7]

Corect. Science cannot negate the existence of God. And, since you are relatively new here, let me say that I absolutely accept God as the creator of everything.I agree with that.Ideas cannot negate facts. I’ll look forward to your presentation.While you “believed” in evolution, you never really understood it, did you?

Peace

Tim

Let me make this last statement I made with the trilobite clear…I KNOW that that could not have happened…I made an extreme point to MAKE my point…that the evidence of trannsitional species in the fossil record simply doesn’t hold water…like a worm with legs…so what? We call those things centipedes and millipedes and the like…I’m talking about complex body plans…brains, hearts, kidneys…that sort of thing…I know those can’t be fossilized, but more complex species would naturally have more complex body plans…an ameba cannot give birth to a higher organism with a more complex make up system. Mutations, though they may cause changes are not only rare but usually dangerous to the organism in question. Whether this can be argued away with science is in my opinion left to be seen. Maybe if we’re still around in a million years and we’ve evolved into something that looks completly different can this “theory” be finally proven as fact.
P7

 

[I_Leatherman]

'Spose the Fact that there is any disagreement or discussion at all about the evolution of Man must mean that it has not yet been established as a concrete, scientifically proven fact.

 

[Pryority7]

Correct…this is not about the stubborness of “religious” rant…it’s the stubborness of certain scientists and their “scientific” rant.

 

[steveandersen]

'Spose the Fact that there is any disagreement or discussion at all about the evolution of Man must mean that it has not yet been established as a concrete, scientifically proven fact.

As mentioned above “proof” is for liquor and geometry. In Science we merely have to be consistent with the preponderance of the evidence (and the evidence is pretty ponderous).

You are assuming that just because there is discussion or disagreement about evolution that those disagreements actually hold any water.

After all there are plenty of discussions and disagreement about married priests or woman priests do the fact that these exist make their cases any stronger?

 

[buffalo]

Correct.
BONG! Wrong - no this is not so in information theory

BONG! No, not necessarily. What about a gene, a chromosome or a whole genome duplication? How about a point mutation that enables speech?
Absolutely yes. Duplication and mutation absolutely, in formal information theory, add information to a genome. Every point mutation adds information to the gene pool of a population.

BONG! NO! mutations do not lose information. One would have to be very ignorant of information theory to claim such an erroneous thing.

What we need from you is a definition of information in genomes and an unambiguous way to measure the information in any single generation so we can see clearly whether information increases or decreases as a result of mutation and selection. That is not currently forthcoming, nor, I predict, will it ever come from you.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Both of you are correct in trying to nail down what is information.

I would propose that by information we speak in terms of the instructional language of DNA.

In a mutation does the instructional language get more complex or less complex?

 

[Brendan]

Of course Adam & Eve were made up, there is not one shred of evidence to support their existence. There are, however, masses of evidence in museums throughout the world that supports evolution.

Actually, there is a wealth of evidence on the differentation of species. It does not necessarily follow that the differation is the result of random occurances.

And secondly, could you explain how an immortal soul can be ‘evolved’? That is kind of a requirement to be a human.

 

[buffalo]

But buffalo goes further than saying than man was created miraculously. He says that evolution doesn’t happen, and he points to an empirical scientific reason for that. He claims that evolution does not happen because mutations are not observed to increase the information in DNA (his words not mine). That is a purely scientific claim that makes no reference to God or miracles, and I am simply asking him to back up his claim from a scientific point of view. The fact is that his claim is scientific rhubarb and he will be unable to back it up.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Buffalo admits to adaptation. For the lurkers the debate is centered between macro and micro evolution. It’s not fair to the lurkers or newbies to the debate if we don’t explain to them the issue. In any case whether macro happens or not I have always pointed out that the science has to harmonize with Revelation as each come from the same God. There are several dogmatic points of intersection.

 

[buffalo]

Yes but theologians are still interpreting it
See posts #72 and #76

Theologians have no teaching authority in the Catholic Church. The Magisterium has this authority. Theologians musings are just that until proclaimed by the Magisterium.

 

[FromTheCrossroa]

The evolution I was taught in High School was this:

Beginning:
Everything including the Big Bang happened completely by random chance. Any statistician would calculate those odds near impossible to 1. It should also be noted many cosmologists no longer accept the whoops it just happened theory.

Origins of Life:

Life began as a collection of random amino acids which came together all by themselves and formed the first single cell life form. Scientists have tirelessly tried to prove that theory in vain. They’ve tried every stimulus known to convince new life to form from nothing…hasn’t worked.

Diversity of life:

Each new species was a “good” mutation from its predecessor. This would be the most plausable part of evolution, although it is still not proven to be true.

Without assistance, wild diversity within species is not the norm.

For instance:

The dog for instance has had man’s direct influence over its breeding. That influence has created breeds that themselves could also be mistaken for different species if a toy poodle and a great dane were found in the fossil record. The diversity was always there in Dog’s gene pool but needed man to produce its wide variety. However, no amount of breeding has produced another species incapable of breeding with a dog. Without someone being able to directly manipulate genes intelligently, its doubtful any new species would ever result.

What about hybrids? Thats certainly a way to add different DNA. The problem with hybrid animals is their offspring are sterile. Mules for example are created by a horse and donkey breeding. In the wild, interbreeding does not occur by complex life forms. In a cage, a Lion and a Tiger might produce Napolean Dynamite’s favorite animal, but not in the wild. In the wild, they would be killing each other for food or territory.

Another example would be dolphins and killer whales. In captivity, they have produced wolfins. In the wild, these two would also be in competition for food, resources and terroritory.

My point in this is secular evolution is missing one key part of the equation…the catalyst. The Bible doesn’t say how, only why. Secular scientists have a clear answer to their question (why) but refuse to acknowledge the possibility.

Could God use nature to His advantage in the creation of all life? It seems man has shown that answer to be yes. Can random events and nature produce increasing diversity and complexity without intelligence behind it? I got tired of waiting for this reply to randomly finish itself…maybe if I gave it another 100 million years or so

 

[Orogeny]

Let me make this last statement I made with the trilobite clear…I KNOW that that could not have happened…I made an extreme point to MAKE my point…that the evidence of trannsitional species in the fossil record simply doesn’t hold water…like a worm with legs…so what? We call those things centipedes and millipedes and the like…

See, the point is is that you don’t know what you are talking about. Centipedes and millipedes are not worms. They are arthropods.

I’m talking about complex body plans…brains, hearts, kidneys…that sort of thing…I know those can’t be fossilized, but more complex species would naturally have more complex body plans

You mean like centipedes and millipedes as compared to worms?

…an ameba cannot give birth to a higher organism with a more complex make up system.

Please share with us the evidence you have to support that assertion.

Mutations, though they may cause changes are not only rare but usually dangerous to the organism in question. Whether this can be argued away with science is in my opinion left to be seen. Maybe if we’re still around in a million years and we’ve evolved into something that looks completly different can this “theory” be finally proven as fact.
P7

Mutations are not rare and, in fact, are usually neutral rather than dangerous. You need to study the science rather than the apologetics of evolution.

Peace

Tim

 

[Brendan]

This is the only one I’m interested in. The rest don’t give a direct answer to the question. Citation to this please? Thanks.

Humani Generis
Pope Pius XII

1. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty (in variation of belief). 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.[18]

 

[Orogeny]

The evolution I was taught in High School was this:

Beginning:
Everything including the Big Bang happened completely by random chance. Any statistician would calculate those odds near impossible to 1. It should also be noted many cosmologists no longer accept the whoops it just happened theory.

Sorry, I don’t believe you were taught this in a biology class.

Origins of Life:

Life began as a collection of random amino acids which came together all by themselves and formed the first single cell life form. Scientists have tirelessly tried to prove that theory in vain. They’ve tried every stimulus known to convince new life to form from nothing…hasn’t worked.

The origin of life is not evolution.

Diversity of life:

Each new species was a “good” mutation from its predecessor. This would be the most plausable part of evolution, although it is still not proven to be true.

Without assistance, wild diversity within species is not the norm.

Without assistance? What do you mean? Like changing climates?

My point in this is secular evolution is missing one key part of the equation…the catalyst. The Bible doesn’t say how, only why. Secular scientists have a clear answer to their question (why) but refuse to acknowledge the possibility.

I agree with this, but the catalyst (God) doesn’t fall within the realm of science, so using God as a reason is unscientific by definition.

Peace

Tim

 

[steveandersen]

Let me make this last statement I made with the trilobite clear…I KNOW that that could not have happened…

Fine, prove it

I made an extreme point to MAKE my point…

It wasn’t an extreme point; it was (in all charity) nonsense.

that the evidence of trannsitional species in the fossil record simply doesn’t hold water…

All species and all fossils are transitional
Please provide a definition as to what you would like to see in a transitional species

.like a worm with legs…so what? We call those things centipedes and millipedes and the like

No, we don’t. The point the article was making is that precursors of arthropods began to be seen at this time.
You asked for transitional species and the linked article pointed out several instance of given organisms A and C, an organism B with features of both was found in the proper geographic and chronological location. That is what a transitional species is.

The discovery of the first ants (the ur-ant) is a great (and more modern) example of locating transitional species right where and when and with the appropriate features.
It is considered an empirical demonstration of the veracity of the theory.

…I’m talking about complex body plans…brains, hearts, kidneys…that sort of thing…I know those can’t be fossilized, but more complex species would naturally have more complex body plans

Don’t tell me you are resorting to “irreducible complexity”

…an ameba cannot give birth to a higher organism with a more complex make up system.

Once again you show a profound misrepresentation of what evolution actually says.

Mutations, though they may cause changes are not only rare but usually dangerous to the organism in question.

As stated above mutations are fairly common especially considering the number of cells that are around at any one time and the time-spans we’re considering.
Most mutations are harmless or neutral. Changing environmental pressures can cause an otherwise neutral gene to suddenly become selected for or against. The sickle cell gene in modern humans is a good example.

Whether this can be argued away with science is in my opinion left to be seen.

Given what you have indicated as your understanding of evolution I’m not sure what sort of evidence that you would accept or what bearing your opinion should have on the matter.

Maybe if we’re still around in a million years and we’ve evolved into something that looks completly different can this “theory” be finally proven as fact.
P7

Whether you like it or not, common descent is a fact. The exact workings of the mechanism(s) or the exact path taken will probably never be known but that is OK. You don’t need to know every single twist and turn and pothole in the road to know that it goes from here to there.
Science doesn’t “prove” anything. It just finds models that are compatible with the data. You show me a better fit to the data and then we’ll talk.

And while there are certain people who take strong exception to evolution, I have only heard them say “no”. I have never heard them come up with a robust counter-proposal other than “God did it.”

Now that’s fine but I can just as easily say God did it when it comes to evolution and I still have the preponderance of the evidence on my side.

 

[wildleafblower]

Popping in fast to mention that I just now happened to read an absolutely excellent article from HOWARD HUGHES MEDICAL INSTITUTE ***WHEN WORLDS COLLIDE: Micro versus Macro ***OCTOBER 21, 2006. I encourage everyone to read it!

hhmi.org/biointeractive/museum/exhibit99/a_1.html

Another excellent article How Did We Get Here? From the inheritance of acquired traits to natural selection to evo devo, evolutionary theory has itself evolved By Steve Mirsky

hhmi.org/biointeractive/evolution/howdidwegethere.html

Thanks Howard Hughes for spending your money wisely!

I need to make my way back over the weekend to the thread Magisterium concerning Creation/evolution controversy. There is:yup: much more to be contributed there and here.

 

[steveandersen]

Theologians have no teaching authority in the Catholic Church. The Magisterium has this authority. Theologians musings are just that until proclaimed by the Magisterium.

Oh, yes I know. But the article I cited was published 40 years ago in the Vatican’s own paper. The authors weren’t some cranks working off on their own. They haven’t been smacked down so it appears that the Magisterium hasn’t pronounced on it yet. (And I don’t think they will other than their cautious “they’re not incompatible” line)

All that Humani Generis states is we can’t hold that there were “true men” contemporaneous with Adam other than his decedents. This doesn’t seem to preclude God ensouling a pair in an existing (non “true”) population.

 

[buffalo]

All that Humani Generis states is we can’t hold that there were “true men” contemporaneous with Adam other than his decedents. This doesn’t seem to preclude God ensouling a pair in an existing (non “true”) population.

Human Generis must be taken together with constant church teaching. No syncretism is allowed.

 

[dessert]

Popping in fast to mention that I just now happened to read an absolutely excellent article from HOWARD HUGHES MEDICAL INSTITUTE ***WHEN WORLDS COLLIDE: Micro versus Macro ***OCTOBER 21, 2006. I encourage everyone to read it!

hhmi.org/biointeractive/museum/exhibit99/a_1.html

Another excellent article How Did We Get Here? From the inheritance of acquired traits to natural selection to evo devo, evolutionary theory has itself evolved By Steve Mirsky

hhmi.org/biointeractive/evolution/howdidwegethere.html

Thanks Howard Hughes for spending your money wisely!

I need to make my way back over the weekend to the thread Magisterium concerning Creation/evolution controversy. There is:yup: much more to be contributed there and here.

This reminds me of microbiology days of which I did not get real good grades. Yes there is a parasite that lives and feeds off a bactreium that lives on a parasite that eats a bacterium that lives on a bug that lives on a dust in the air that also falls on you! Makes you NOT to want to eat that jelly bread that the fly just landed on. I read it and it is nice to get updated on all that. God did make all the bugs big ones little ones and Adam oopps! This is also why the people that settled the country used to burry their plagued diseassed dead 100 feet down into the ground and what do we do? Dig them up and expose all the germs. I mthink some of those bugs survived. And our wonderfull praying saints of the church are holy and pure and it is shown through the relics of their prescioous bodies. I have deduced from the bible but it is only my understanding and opinion that death was released onto us by God reduceing our immune sustem as He said now you will grow old and your body will die. He said the rose will have thorns and this could mean it will stick us and our immune systems will have to be always fighting dissease. Jesus became the second Adam
Praise to Him! return

 

[Brendan]

All that Humani Generis states is we can’t hold that there were “true men” contemporaneous with Adam other than his decedents. This doesn’t seem to preclude God ensouling a pair in an existing (non “true”) population.

Yes, the ensoulding of a rational soul into a corporal body is the theological defintion of being a human.

But what Humani Generis also shows is that, by definition, those would be the only two humans. All other corporal creatures would be plant or brute animal.

So yes, it is possible, under H.G., that God created humans from already created matter, such as pre-human animals. But those others would not be rational creatures, but animals. And the existance of humans would be a product of direct creation, not an ‘evolution’, as rational souls are not a product of evolution, but an immediate creation of God ( also in H.G.)

It would also mean that those two first humans (so named Adam and Eve) would have existed and our human nature derived from them and no others.

 

[I_Leatherman]

As mentioned above “proof” is for liquor and geometry. In Science we merely have to be consistent with the preponderance of the evidence (and the evidence is pretty ponderous).

Only drink liquor when I have a cold - I never do geometry knowingly.
While I was typing I knew steveandersen would respond, that might be proof of something.
But ‘science’ is constantly correcting itself - what was true in geology 40 years ago is now unworkable.
Which is my argument, I suppose, and the Vaticans stance - as far as I can see.
We shall wait until 100% of the evidence is in before attempting to support a concrete scientific declaration, otherwise stricly speaking we are merely giving opinions which can be subject to change, rather than giving a continuous line of evidence which would speak for itself as incontrovertable proof.

You are assuming that just because there is discussion or disagreement about evolution that those disagreements actually hold any water.

After all there are plenty of discussions and disagreement about married priests or woman priests do the fact that these exist make their cases any stronger?

It matters not. No-one argues that the earth is spherical - to state that something is ‘scientifically speaking’ true it must be ‘scientifically proven’ to be true.
Otherwise no matter how reasonable an opinion may be it will, sadly, remain - just an opinion.