Another difficulty of theistic evolution

[Marocchino]

‘Bob begat Bill’ doesn’t necessarily mean Bob is Bill’s father. There could be multiple generations between these two.

The question: could there be so many skipped generations in the Genesis genealogy to place Adam and Eve at the beginning of human history according to the evolutionary timescale (ie, 100 to 200 thousand years ago)? I do not think so.

In light of this, how are we to understand the doctrine of original sin and the fall of the human race?

 

[paul_c]

The question: could there be so many skipped generations in the Genesis genealogy to place Adam and Eve at the beginning of human history according to the evolutionary timescale (ie, 100 to 200 thousand years ago)? I do not think so.

In light of this, how are we to understand the doctrine of original sin and the fall of the human race?

First of all, it is not a given that the humanoids of 100K years ago had souls. The first true man was the first one with a soul. Fossil records are not likely to be able to determine that. Secondly, even if the first real man was 200,000 years ago, (lets say 10,000 generations), do you really expect to see a geneology to detail that. By necessity, it would have to be condensed. Perhaps that what you see in Genesis.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Catechism 390:

The Catechism affirms that the fall of Adam and Eve was a historical event that took place at the beginning of the history of man. For Catholics who espouse theistic evolution, how do you reconcile the evolutionary timescale, which suggests that man has existed for over 100 thousand years, with the Genesis genealogies, which, even if they contain some gaps, cannot be stretched to fit the evolutionary timescale?

**By pointing out that the question is confused & meaningless. **​

---

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

The genealogies can be used to date the event to at a maximum of about 15 thousand years ago. Can you stretch the timeline further without doing violence to the text?

There is not one shred of evidence that the geneaologies are to be elasticated in that way. If the author of Genesis was not capable of making abundantly obvious that despite allowing only 1,656 years from Adam to the Flood, he really meant to allow 15,000 years, then he was an incompetent, an idiot, a deceiver, or all three. In no case is his book worth reading.​

The only excuse for this ridiculous elastication of numbers that are perfectly unproblematic as they stand is that people cannot leave the book alone, but are obsessed with forcing it to agree with the fantasies & theories that are important to them; so they ignore what it says in favour of the utterly irrelevant ideas which they seek to force into it even if the heavens have to fall for them to do so.

The so-called difficulty does not exist.

 

[Marocchino]

**By pointing out that the question is confused & meaningless. **​

---

That was quite uncharitable.

people cannot leave the book alone, but are obsessed with forcing it to agree with the fantasies & theories that are important to them

Are the original state of justice, original sin, and the fall of humankind fantasies?

I am tired of getting the run-around on this question and people giving me vague and dismissive answers like, “Genesis is not a science book” – or “Adam and Eve are symbols”-- or “Your question is meaningless” – or “You are confused”.

Did God create the world in an original state of goodness without human death and suffering as it says in Genesis and has the Church has taught for most of her life?

Or did God use a billion year process of suffering and death to bring human life about – a process which seems to exclude the possibility of an historical Adam and Eve and state of paradise?

If you are truly interested in helping me explore this question in a charitable and Christian way, I welcome you to post on this forum.

If you are going to use this as an opportunity to be insulting and dismissive, then KEEP YOUR COMMENTS TO YOURSELF.

---

 

[rossum]

‘begat’ would mean ‘proceeding from’.

**Proverbs 8:22 **(God regarding ‘wisdom’)
"The LORD begot me, the first-born of his ways, the forerunner of his prodigies of long ago;

Obviously there hasn’t been a point where God was without Wisdom. In the proverb, ‘begot’ means ‘proceeding from’. This same definition applies to John 3:16.

John 3:16 (God regarding Jesus)
… he gave his only begotten son

as we state in the creed ‘begotten, not made’.

Using the genealogies alone would not be sufficient as it is unlikely that every ancestor in the lineage is listed.
To say ‘this guy’ was begat by ‘that guy’ might leave out generations between them.

You have left out perhaps the most obvious example of generations being left out:A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham [Matthew 1:1]There are a number of generations being left out both between Abraham and David and between David and Jesus.

rossum

 

[mich2]

Err…Populations evolve…natural selection works on individuals…

If an individual ‘evolves’ (i.e. mutates), it doesnt mean that its genes will be passed on…especially if it is in a large community, where the gene can easily be hidden. The gene can be passed on only if it means a better survival for the species, or is in a small community. Good example would be people at Pingelap Atoll. Source

wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_can_a_population_evolve_but_an_individual_can_not

In order for a population to evolve,Ankabaranka, would this not assume that a great number of the same type of genetic changes would occur within a population, a mutation so dramatic as to involve the sex cells to mutate as well, allowing the species to survive if such genetic changes are beneficial or at least non-destructive in the face of the environment?
What would trigger such a drastic type of mutation, not of one individual, but of many in order for such mutation to survive and be passed on? It seems to me that random mutation would be harder to believe than thinking that a bilogical reaction towards a new environment, within the population itself would have been triggered,allowing many within the population to receive the same type of mutation and being able to pass on this new gene information in the process of reproduction.

Andre

 

[mich2]

That was quite uncharitable.

Are the original state of justice, original sin, and the fall of humankind fantasies?

I am tired of getting the run-around on this question and people giving me vague and dismissive answers like, “Genesis is not a science book” – or “Adam and Eve are symbols”-- or “Your question is meaningless” – or “You are confused”.

Did God create the world in an original state of goodness without human death and suffering as it says in Genesis and has the Church has taught for most of her life?

Or did God use a billion year process of suffering and death to bring human life about – a process which seems to exclude the possibility of an historical Adam and Eve and state of paradise?

If you are truly interested in helping me explore this question in a charitable and Christian way, I welcome you to post on this forum.

If you are going to use this as an opportunity to be insulting and dismissive, then KEEP YOUR COMMENTS TO YOURSELF.

---

My “personal” opinion would be that Adam and Eve would have been spiritually created and lived in Paradise, for maybe a couple of billions of years, relative to our earth perception of time.
However, I believe the Fall did happened between 6 to 10 thousand years ago, the beginning of what we would call the age of civilization, where Adam’s descendants might have played a major role in the construction of cities and may have been regarded as “gods” in the eyes of humanity, which itself, may have evolved over 100,000 years ago, or on the 6th Genesis day.

Andre

 

[rossum]

In order for a population to evolve,Ankabaranka, would this not assume that a great number of the same type of genetic changes would occur within a population,

No. It merely requires that the mutation appears once and confers an advantage in reproduction. The process is a bit like compound interest. As an example, take a stable population; on average each organism has one descendant in the next generation. Now let a beneficial mutation appear with a 1% advantage, so the mutated organism will have on average 1.01 descendants in the next generation. See what happens if we let the population reproduce for one thousand generations:

Generation  Normal   Mutant
----------  ------   --------
     0       1.00        1.00
     1       1.00        1.01
    10       1.00        1.10
   100       1.00        2.70
   500       1.00      144.77
   700       1.00     1059.16
  1000       1.00    20959.16

You can see how the small 1% advantage is amplified over the generations as the mutant variant spreads through the population.

This is a very simple model, but it is enough to show the advantage a beneficial mutation has and how it can spread through a population.

The alternative scenario is neutral drift - the mutation is neutral (no advantage, no disadvantage) but just gets lucky. An average human has about 100 to 150 mutations so each generation of humans puts billions of new mutations into the gene pool. Sometimes one of them gets lucky.

What would trigger such a drastic type of mutation, not of one individual, but of many in order for such mutation to survive and be passed on?

You have misunderstood the mechanisms of evolution so your question is not relevant.

rossum

 

[Ankabaranka_87]

In order for a population to evolve,Ankabaranka, would this not assume that a great number of the same type of genetic changes would occur within a population, a mutation so dramatic as to involve the sex cells to mutate as well, allowing the species to survive if such genetic changes are beneficial or at least non-destructive in the face of the environment?
What would trigger such a drastic type of mutation, not of one individual, but of many in order for such mutation to survive and be passed on? It seems to me that random mutation would be harder to believe than thinking that a bilogical reaction towards a new environment, within the population itself would have been triggered,allowing many within the population to receive the same type of mutation and being able to pass on this new gene information in the process of reproduction.

Andre

I can’t count the number of times in my Evolutionary Ecology class the professor told us that evolutionary change occurs on populations and natural selection affects individuals (however, n.s. is nt the only agent responsible for evolution…but it is the only mechanism that acting alone results in adaptation, the other 3 do not favour certain alleles over others)

Evolution does not occur easily, nor is it simple.

There are a few mechanisms of evolution, including:

1. Genetic Drift (where allele frequencies change randomly…some cases alleles decrease frequency, e.g. Pingelap atoll)
2. Gene flow (movement of alleles from one population to another…may homogenize allele frequencies between populations…very good example is with interacial marriages)
3. Mutation: creates new alleles and helps restore genetic diversity.
4. Selection: certain alleles are favoured…for example peacocks with large tail feathers…over time male peacocks get bigger and prettier tails.

With respect to 1, 2 and 4, mutation does occur slowly. And usually easier when combined with one of the other mechanisms. there are instances that mutations do get ‘erased out’. What rossum wrote is correct. Mutation is more apparent with those organisms that quickly grow and reproduce, for example bacteria.

An example of evolution with mutation is the Human Immunodeficiency Virus. Why is this virus a disaster? This virus continuously mutates, where the mutated version of the virus is resistent to the medication that the person takes. The viruses that do not mutate die off, whereas the mutated ones thrive.

However mutation does occur randomly. Sometimes the mutation is beneficial, sometimes it is deletrious (e.g. down’s syndrome) and sometimes neutral. Sometimes the deletrious allele ‘wins’, just like it happened with the Pingelap Atoll population…where a population of 20 people survived a typhoon…one of the people had a loss of function allele (a recessive gene) for colour vision. However, when homozygous, causes achromatopsia. Since the population was small…this issue magnified where now…300 years later, has a frequency of 20% in the population.

Believe me, I used to have my doubts for evolution, until I took this course…and since then been reading articles, especially regarding the Church’s position on evolution. I still do not place 100% certainity behind it, but it is still a possibility.

 

[Ankabaranka_87]

Argh, I went over the 20 min to correct my post. I would like to add something for you mich2.

Mutation is more apparent with those organisms that quickly grow and reproduce, for example bacteria (Lenski’s experiment with E. coli on the Ara+/- gene is a good example).

I can understnad why you would find mutation difficult to believe. An example from my text book is to suppose a 195,000 humans in a population…5,000 offspring born in one year, ending the year with 200,000…Humans are diploid, resulting in 400,000 copies of each gene. one of them is a new allele created by mutation. thus, allele frequency introduced is 1/400,000. With this rate, it would take 4000 years for mutation to produce a change in allele frequency of 1%.

But if mutation (since it is the ultimate source of genetic variation) was to stop, evolution would stop, because without it, there is no variation for natural selection to act upon it. So, if combined with natural selection and across the genome, it is an important evolutionary mechanism.

(Source: Freeman, Biological Science 3ed)

 

[Namesake]

Err…Populations evolve…natural selection works on individuals…

If an individual ‘evolves’ (i.e. mutates), it doesnt mean that its genes will be passed on…especially if it is in a large community, where the gene can easily be hidden. The gene can be passed on only if it means a better survival for the species, or is in a small community. Good example would be people at Pingelap Atoll. Source

wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_can_a_population_evolve_but_an_individual_can_not

It’s for the most part an academic argument. I prefer to consider the organism to be the organizer and protector of the gene and the gene to be the fundamental unit of evolution. Or if you prefer, the allele within a population.

Populations can’t do much but individual organisms compete and reproduce and can therefore alter the population.

 

[mich2]

I can’t count the number of times in my Evolutionary Ecology class the professor told us that evolutionary change occurs on populations and natural selection affects individuals (however, n.s. is nt the only agent responsible for evolution…but it is the only mechanism that acting alone results in adaptation, the other 3 do not favour certain alleles over others)

Evolution does not occur easily, nor is it simple.

There are a few mechanisms of evolution, including:

1. Genetic Drift (where allele frequencies change randomly…some cases alleles decrease frequency, e.g. Pingelap atoll)
2. Gene flow (movement of alleles from one population to another…may homogenize allele frequencies between populations…very good example is with interacial marriages)
3. Mutation: creates new alleles and helps restore genetic diversity.
4. Selection: certain alleles are favoured…for example peacocks with large tail feathers…over time male peacocks get bigger and prettier tails.

With respect to 1, 2 and 4, mutation does occur slowly. And usually easier when combined with one of the other mechanisms. there are instances that mutations do get ‘erased out’. What rossum wrote is correct. Mutation is more apparent with those organisms that quickly grow and reproduce, for example bacteria.

An example of evolution with mutation is the Human Immunodeficiency Virus. Why is this virus a disaster? This virus continuously mutates, where the mutated version of the virus is resistent to the medication that the person takes. The viruses that do not mutate die off, whereas the mutated ones thrive.

However mutation does occur randomly. Sometimes the mutation is beneficial, sometimes it is deletrious (e.g. down’s syndrome) and sometimes neutral. Sometimes the deletrious allele ‘wins’, just like it happened with the Pingelap Atoll population…where a population of 20 people survived a typhoon…one of the people had a loss of function allele (a recessive gene) for colour vision. However, when homozygous, causes achromatopsia. Since the population was small…this issue magnified where now…300 years later, has a frequency of 20% in the population.

Believe me, I used to have my doubts for evolution, until I took this course…and since then been reading articles, especially regarding the Church’s position on evolution. I still do not place 100% certainity behind it, but it is still a possibility.

Thank you for the explanation, Ankabaranka. I have no problems with the theory of evolution. But I have this gut feeling, which of coarse can be wrong, that somehow, it is guided…just my personal belief.

Andre

 

[mich2]

No. It merely requires that the mutation appears once and confers an advantage in reproduction. The process is a bit like compound interest. As an example, take a stable population; on average each organism has one descendant in the next generation. Now let a beneficial mutation appear with a 1% advantage, so the mutated organism will have on average 1.01 descendants in the next generation. See what happens if we let the population reproduce for one thousand generations:

Generation  Normal   Mutant
----------  ------   --------
     0       1.00        1.00
     1       1.00        1.01
    10       1.00        1.10
   100       1.00        2.70
   500       1.00      144.77
   700       1.00     1059.16
  1000       1.00    20959.16

You can see how the small 1% advantage is amplified over the generations as the mutant variant spreads through the population.

This is a very simple model, but it is enough to show the advantage a beneficial mutation has and how it can spread through a population.

The alternative scenario is neutral drift - the mutation is neutral (no advantage, no disadvantage) but just gets lucky. An average human has about 100 to 150 mutations so each generation of humans puts billions of new mutations into the gene pool. Sometimes one of them gets lucky.

You have misunderstood the mechanisms of evolution so your question is not relevant.

rossum

Thank you for the explanation,rossum…

As for the last part, if the mutation rate of a bacteria population increases when the colony is exposed to a destructive environment, why would this not be considered a “reaction” of the bacteria population in trying to survive and adapt to it’s new environment?

Andre

 

[rossum]

As for the last part, if the mutation rate of a bacteria population increases when the colony is exposed to a destructive environment, why would this not be considered a “reaction” of the bacteria population in trying to survive and adapt to it’s new environment?

Bacteria contain error-correcting mechanisms which correct some (but not all) errors made in the initial copying of their DNA. If the bacteria are under stress, such as starvation, these mechanisms can start to break down thus allowing more mutations to make it into the next generation.

rossum

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

That was quite uncharitable.

**How ? Some on CAF are advocates of “tough love” - maybe that was an example of “tough love”. Jesus & the Apostles said or wrote things far more “insulting” than this poster has - if they can be “insulting”, so can this poster; so can any of us. At least no one is going treat such posts as Holy Writ; but that is what the insults of Jesus, Paul, Peter, Jude are treated as. Some of the Fathers were greatly gifted in this way - Jerome calls his friend-as-was Rufinus a “scorpion”, & rejoices on hearing of his death. Have I called you a “scorpion”, or anyone else ? Well then. **​

Are the original state of justice, original sin, and the fall of humankind fantasies?

If you give what’s in the post, perhaps a answer will be possible.

I am tired of getting the run-around on this question and people giving me vague and dismissive answers like, “Genesis is not a science book” – or “Adam and Eve are symbols”-- or “Your question is meaningless” – or “You are confused”.

##** Sorry, but if one or more of those is at some time the appropriate answer to a question, then it is the answer to give. That’s reality - whether one likes it or not. ****Getting answers one does not like is not “getting the run-around”. **

Did God create the world in an original state of goodness without human death and suffering as it says in Genesis and has the Church has taught for most of her life?

Or did God use a billion year process of suffering and death to bring human life about – a process which seems to exclude the possibility of an historical Adam and Eve and state of paradise?

If you are truly interested in helping me explore this question in a charitable and Christian way, I welcome you to post on this forum.

Thank you for the permission to post ​

If you are going to use this as an opportunity to be insulting and dismissive, then KEEP YOUR COMMENTS TO YOURSELF.

**Why not give that advice to your oh-so-charitable fellow-accusers on a different forum ? They could do with it. “Insulting & dismissive” describes some of them all too well. **​

 

[Ankabaranka_87]

Thank you for the explanation, Ankabaranka. I have no problems with the theory of evolution. But I have this gut feeling, which of coarse can be wrong, that somehow, it is guided…just my personal belief.

Andre

Thanks Andre. I was about to change the post, but by then 20 min were up for me to correct it. All well, it will help other readers who are a little fuzzy on the idea of evolution is (just like me 5 months ago ).

And I am with you that it is guided. It is difficult for me to believe that the world can be this organized by chance. However, mutation could be one way God would allow the world to ‘control’ on its own.

 

[edwest2]

Some years ago, some scientists took fruit flies and exposed them to radiation to see “evolution” in action.You know what they got? Some pretty messed up fruit flies. All of them remained fruit flies. Some of their body parts ended up in the wrong spot or were deformed but they remained fruit flies. Apparently, their genes were mixed up but no new features were added. This makes the whole idea of random mutation producing anything beneficial doubtful.

I’ve seen video of a cow with an extra pair of useless legs growing out of its chest and frogs that showed deformities after being exposed to chemicals. So do mutations happen? Yes. Are they beneficial in the macro world? Doubtful. Certainly not often enough to produce a totally new organism.

And bacteria. They have built-in ways to deal with outside threats, including lateral gene transfer between different species of bacteria.

Be assured. If anything similar to evolution occurred, and I’m skeptical, it was guided by God. Man was planned by God.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Marocchino]

**How ? Some on CAF are advocates of “tough love” - maybe that was an example of “tough love”. Jesus & the Apostles said or wrote things far more “insulting” than this poster has - if they can be “insulting”, so can this poster; so can any of us. At least no one is going treat such posts as Holy Writ; but that is what the insults of Jesus, Paul, Peter, Jude are treated as. Some of the Fathers were greatly gifted in this way - Jerome calls his friend-as-was Rufinus a “scorpion”, & rejoices on hearing of his death. Have I called you a “scorpion”, or anyone else ? Well then. **​

If you give what’s in the post, perhaps a answer will be possible.
##** Sorry, but if one or more of those is at some time the appropriate answer to a question, then it is the answer to give. That’s reality - whether one likes it or not. ****Getting answers one does not like is not “getting the run-around”. **

Thank you for the permission to post ​

Why not give that advice to your oh-so-charitable fellow-accusers on a different forum ? They could do with it. “Insulting & dismissive” describes some of them all too well. ​

LOL. Good points, friend. Didn’t mean to get you so worked up.

By the way, you forgot about St. John the Baptist calling the Sadducees a “brood of vipers” and St. Nicholas knocking out Bishop Arius at the Council of Nicaea.

 

[Spirithound]

Certainly not often enough to produce a totally new organism.

What does “a totally new organism” mean? Is a Rottweiler a different organism from a Yorkshire terrier?