Ape fossil bridges evolutionary gap

[AndyF]

Fitz:

I am not knowledgeable in this area. One funny thing I have wondered, is perhaps Adam and Eve were apes? I don’t really care, and maybe that is not right. God made all of us, apes and humans. If we evolved, I would still believe in the Bible. God started us all.

I believe in the Adam and Eve story.

I think it is a story made by ancient man to help explain something that could only be explained through science.

At one time in man’s evolution he became self aware (maybe somewhere between australopithecus and homo erectus?), and became conscient with that natural grace, and immediatly made a bad decision to do wrong like pick up a jawbone (Space Odyssey?) and clobbered Grog on noggin, and God said to himself “MMMMMmmm, should I allow this little creep to become extinct?, Naawww, I’ll just see what happens, maybe his species will improve”.

We’ve improved, now we use machine guns.

Andy

 

[PaulDupre]

tcaseyrochester:

Why do we as Catholics fear science? I have never understood the arrogance of mankind when they presume to be able to understand God’s methods.

The big bang, evolution, chemistry, physics, isn’t the fact that these sciences are so complex and difficult to grasp, so imperfect, a testimony to the greatness of God, not a threat against His image?

I have pondered this for 46 years, and I still do not, can not see the problem with reconciling science and our Faith. I have been criticized by BOTH SIDES for this view…

• 

Agreed!
Let’s all remember that God is in charge here. He is not threatened by knowledge - in fact He IS knowledge. Neither should we feel threatened, for we are His.
Paul

Just the facts, ma’am. - Sgt Joe Friday

 

[buffalo]

tcaseyrochester:

Why do we as Catholics fear science? I have never understood the arrogance of mankind when they presume to be able to understand God’s methods.

The big bang, evolution, chemistry, physics, isn’t the fact that these sciences are so complex and difficult to grasp, so imperfect, a testimony to the greatness of God, not a threat against His image?

I have pondered this for 46 years, and I still do not, can not see the problem with reconciling science and our Faith. I have been criticized by BOTH SIDES for this view…

• 

Catholicism is a friend of science. It has been for its whole existence. Catholicism is not a friend of materialism for it tries to eliminate God. Many still have the agenda of proving materialism although for most part it has disappeared as quantum physics has defeated it.

 

[buffalo]

AndyF:

I believe in the Adam and Eve story.

I think it is a story made by ancient man to help explain something that could only be explained through science.

At one time in man’s evolution he became self aware (maybe somewhere between australopithecus and homo erectus?), and became conscient with that natural grace, and immediatly made a bad decision to do wrong like pick up a jawbone (Space Odyssey?) and clobbered Grog on noggin, and God said to himself “MMMMMmmm, should I allow this little creep to become extinct?, Naawww, I’ll just see what happens, maybe his species will improve”.

We’ve improved, now we use machine guns.

Andy

What about another possibility? That God just inserted at will man in the timeline right where he wanted him? Why do we have only two possibilities?

 

[larryo]

The problem with this evolutionary theory of early “man” is that the fossil record is so sparse. It’s like trying to extrapolate the periodic table of the currently recognized 110 elements from the discovery of boron, chlorine, and germanium. The hypothesis may be true but there’s simply no way to prove it. Is it possible for God to have allowed the necessary form of homonid body to develop from some ape-like species and then infuse a human soul in it? Of course. Is it possible for God to have simply created a human man and woman from nothing as He did the universe? Of course. The most important facet of man is his immortal soul, directly and individually created by God. This is a matter of faith, not subject to empirical testing.

 

[RNRobert]

This reminds me of something I heard when I was listening to the BBC on shortwave about 8 or 9 years ago. In one of their news broadcasts, they told the story of a scientist who was doing research with the bones of “Lucy.” Using a computer program, he determined that “Lucy” walked upright, not on all fours as originally thought. The conclusion: Our ancestors must have learned to walk upright while still in the trees. It just seems to me that scientists try to “fit” the evidence to their conclusions, rather like ‘nebraska man’ (which was nothing more than a tooth that was used to “prove” evolution at the Scopes monkey trial in 1925; further excavations at the site it was recovered from showed that it belonged to a pig!).

 

[itsjustdave1988]

… further excavations at the site it was recovered from showed that it belonged to a pig!).

Hmmmm. My wife is right, I am a pig.

 

[PhilVaz]

Here we go again, another evolution thread…

This new find pushes the date back (or forward?) for our common ancestor, but I’m still pondering the Hobbits of Indonesia…as science will be for years.

Your evidence for human evolution is not just a few bones, and the well known “hoaxes” have been well exposed by science for many years (Piltdown man for 50 years, and Nebraska man “pig tooth” which was never significant anyway, for over 80)

Here is your prominent hominid evidence with a timeline

And here is your molecular DNA evidence (good articles in response to creationists on human evolution)

And here is Evolution for Dummies

There’s no use fighting macroevolution (including human evolution) since the evidence is strong. Which is why I ordered this John Haught book maybe he has some answers.

Phil P

 

[katybird]

I had to vote to see the poll result, but I would have rather had a choice like “I don’t know enough about this case to say for sure, but it may well be another evolutionary link.”

I never got that “missing link” thing. What does that mean, exactly? It seems obvious to me that, as you look further back in time in the fossil record, there were different species that were similar to species found earlier and later in the record. If you go back beyond a certain point, you find no human remains, yet you find remains of something that was similar to a human.

I don’t think anybody seriously proposes that we descend from modern apes. Our ancestors are not chimpanzees. However, it seems pretty obvious to me that we have common ancestors with chimpanzees. Why is this such a problem for so many people? What does it matter?

I’m really glad that the Catholic Church does not require me to believe that we have no non-human ancestors. If She did that, I wouldn’t be able to comply and I’d probably have to cease being Catholic, and therefor, Christian.

 

[space_ghost]

OK… so what if??? it was! what if, they proove without “Reasonable Doubt” that we are indeed related… so what?

What if God just decided to spin us off a branch of the apes… whats it really matter?

your opinions?

 

[AndyF]

buffalo:

What about another possibility? That God just inserted at will man in the timeline right where he wanted him? Why do we have only two possibilities?

Hi Buffalo!

Sure, other possibles,no problem. The only rule I would insist is in the ground rules, and that is to state what earthly date(time line) an event occured relative to an agreed known time an event occured in this dimension.

For instance, some may advance a theory that Adam and Eve were inserted during the copper age, 8000(?) or so years ago, and that implies present time as the relation.

(It is beginning to look like science is pretty close to proving the great flood occured 7600 years ago, Nat. Geog.2004)

You immediatly find yourself in trouble if you accept the 8000 year theory, as day 1 was the creation of the earth. Therefore, the earth was created sometime quite near to 8000 years ago.

All other factors should fit as well. If some agree the earth creation event was formed 4 billion years ago+ -, (our timeline) then what was happening on earth from year 3,999,992,000 back to year 1, assuming year 1 was the year the last “earth building” meteorite hit the earth.

We can go deeper. We need to place it in context of other living creatures as well, as there is but one day difference between us in creation. We would then have to explain why primate DNA is 98% exactly to man’s, and limit all event explainations to the timespan of 8000 years, if that is when you say He made man, which is day 5(if I remember my Genesis,Story 1) of that time line.

Frankly, the hair pulling is a pain, I would prefer to just be content that God loves us and He placed us in dominion over all the other animals. Maybe He thought it would be good for us to be formed gradually into our present, what a better sanctifying process. It doesn’t detract one iota from the fact we are NOW in His image, that He took mud(primal matter,chemical compounds) to form us.

Also, who’s to say God’s years are the same as ours?, and if time is relative, then 1 day to create man is just as irrelevant as 3 million years.

We’re here, rejoice!!

Andy

 

[rossum]

clmowry:

Looks like just another ape to me.

Since, in simple terms, the definition of an ape is “a primate without a tail” it is not surprising that it looks like an ape. Remember that humans are also primates and that humans have no tails.

Yes boys and girls, humans are apes.

rossum

 

[tcaseyrochester]

Jermosh:

The Big Bang theory does not remove God at all, to me it gives actually proof that there is a higher supreme Being. I mean to make something out of nothin is mind boggling.

EXACTLY! But many (note I did not say all) Christians seem so threatened by it.

Genesis even talks of the big bang! “and God said let their be light, and their was light…” The first matter produced by the Big Bang was PHOTONS!

I was once in our local Science Museum admiring an exhibit regarding early hominids (I think they were Homo Erectus). A mom came up anxiously and took her two children standing next to me by the arms and hurrien them away, saying “we do not nee to look at that exhibit, do we, because we know where we came from…”

I just shook my head.

Again, I have to ask, who are we to pretend to be able to comprehend the methods of He who made us?

 

[tcaseyrochester]

Steve Andersen:

while it took a little longer than 7 days it certainly was “sudden” by any stretch of the imagination

Who are we to assume we know what a “day” is in the mind of our Eternal Father?

 

[tcaseyrochester]

buffalo:

Catholicism is a friend of science. It has been for its whole existence. Catholicism is not a friend of materialism for it tries to eliminate God. Many still have the agenda of proving materialism although for most part it has disappeared as quantum physics has defeated it.

Excellent point Buff…

 

[tcaseyrochester]

Apologia100:

tc, I don’t care what side you are on regarding this issue, as long as it’s mine.

 

[tcaseyrochester]

rossum:

Since, in simple terms, the definition of an ape is “a primate without a tail” it is not surprising that it looks like an ape. Remember that humans are also primates and that humans have no tails.

Yes boys and girls, humans are apes.

rossum

Yes, we are apes that have been given eternal souls by our Creator (who happened to create the apes first).

See, no problem!

 

[clmowry]

rossum:

Yes boys and girls, humans are apes.

rossum

Nope.

If you’d like to tell me that humans and apes share similarities. That scientist place human in the same category as they place apes. Then we can agree.

But, the terms are not synonymous.

You may choose to believe that humans are apes.

Until I see proof to the contrary. Humans are humans and apes are apes.

Thus the term “missing” link.

Chuck

 

[vern_humphrey]

tcaseyrochester:

Yes, we are apes that have been given eternal souls by our Creator (who happened to create the apes first).

See, no problem!

No problem at all. The Church has no problem with science, and does not reject evolution (in fact, as I recall, the present official position is that evolution is “more than mere speculation.”)

The only caveat is that it is not permissible to theorize that the SOUL evolved – and souls are not something science can analyze.

 

[tcaseyrochester]

vern humphrey:

The only caveat is that it is not permissible to theorize that the SOUL evolved – and souls are not something science can analyze.

Precisely!