Ape to man?

[Island_Oak]

As a Catholic Christian, I do believe in evolution, but NOT that we started out as primates. God created ALL things, and those living things have evolved over time to adapt to their living environment.

My Frustration comes with the fact that his science teacher, ( who RARELY uses the text book) has spent so much time telling the students how ALIKE we are to apes and planting serious seeds of doubt into their minds of any other possibility, that it makes sense that we evolved from them.

Looks like I am on Major “Damage Control” with this one. My fear is that once this doubt takes place in my son’s mind about HOW we got here, he might start doubting other aspects of our faith and of God Himself.

As Jack Webb once said,“The Facts,ONLY the Facts”,leave the theories to higher grade levels when a child’s thought process is better formed for reasoning.

What’s with all the fear and doubt? Do you not have faith and trust in God? How about in your own ability to guide and inform your son in the faith in your home, which is after all, your job, not the public school’s.

Education and/or exposure to knowledge is not something to be feared. Ignorance, by contrast is. Your son is just on the cusp of being exposed to more advanced education, different social and moral values among his friends and practicing his own critical thinking. It’s like going to a dinner buffet. At first, it’s easy, even preferable, to stick to things that are familiar. Over time, curiosity will lead to experimentation, trying new things. In the end, he may develop a taste/preference for things to which he was never exposed in your home, return to the comfort of what is familiar, or some combination of the two.

The best you can do is to present and practice your faith sincerely and be honest with your son about your convictions as well as your struggles, doubts and failings. You, right along with God our Father, will have to accept that he is a creature endowed with a free will and may or may not adopt his faith–or every tenant of it–with or without the outside influence of his friends, teachers or an academic education.

 

[Jay2]

Maybe “we” were the best candidates of God’s primate creations to get a little boost in one direction? There is strong evidence of lesser primates (apes etc.) showing tendancies towards “human” behavior, but we’ve only been studying/documenting them for a few hundred years… not millions. Maybe God designed 5 or 6 different models of primates. Each with different attributes & abilities. We were the ones that made best use of the tools given and thrived.

Time as we know it is a human creation. Somebody decided to count the number of times the Sun rose & set between when it was warm, then cold outside, and developed crude timekeeping.

Our sum total of existance on this rock is an eyeblink in cosmic “time”. The Bible states that all was created in 6 days, and God rested on the seventh… who’s to say that a “God Day” isn’t 100 Billion of “our” days?

Explain extinction.
If God is perfect, and cannot design/do anything wrong - why are there no more dinosaurs? (Hmm, maybe I goofed on this one…the scale was all wrong, too big, too hungry,…I’ll let the little two legged ones with the bigger brain have a go at it for awhile…)

Our Church had a VERY REAL PROBLEM with science only a few hundred years ago (again an eyeblink). Men & women who thought “outside the box” were persecuted, killed & tortured… all because they questioned the world around them and gave credible arguments contrary to the Church & its “approved” reference materials. This line of thought & action was the work of Satan and you will confess under torture to this effect!

Our spiritual leaders evolved and began to accept & promote these ideas & studies. So what about evolution - the irrefutable FACT is that someone/something (God) had to start the process!

 

[johnboyfl]

I would recommend the following book.

“The Science of God” by Gerald L. Schroeder

 

[Jake_Ellison]

Hi everyone,

This is my first post, but evolution is a topic that really interests me so I think this is as good as any place to start.

I’ve just been reading through some of the previous posts in this topic and there is one thing I find quite interesting. A lot of people who seem anti evolution are those that are least informed about it. Surely it would be far better to make sure you are really clued up on the facts (and theories) of evolution before telling someone they are wrong. Thats the only way to have a meaningful debate. The distrinction between Apes and Ape like creatures such as Homo erectus is very important when thinking about evolution. This is because if you believe we evolved from Apes it suggests one group of Apes stayed still while another just evolved off. Evolution is a continuous process. Even now we are evolving and evolution will always occur as organisms react to changes in the environment and the evolution of other organisms.

Evolution demonstrates the flexability of life to change. I think this is the problem most creationalists have with it. They don’t like the idea that humans have changed, how could they be ‘in God’s image’? Personally I don’t see this condradicts religious believe. I don’t believe there was a first human. I don’t think the creation story in the bible is literal and I don’t believe human kind evolved from two humans. If Adam and Eve were the first two humans to have a soul were they a different specise to their parents? There was no switch from amimal to human in evolutionary history, and scientifically speaking there is nothing biological to seperate us from animals except prehaps one of our most important adaptations: intelligence. In terms of religion this is whats important. While there never was a first human, over time we obtained the ability to recognise ourselves, to be self aware and eventually we developed societies and morals.

Up till now I’ve been speaking as if evolution was definatly a fact and I believe it is. Proof of evolution has been mentioned but this is really a flawed argument against evolution. How do you prove religion? You don’t. It is a matter of faith. It can’t be proved either way. Even scientifical proof is never definate. Can you prove gravity exists? You actually can’t. Prehaps God is holding us to the Earth. Once Rene Decarte desided to list all the things that could be proved definatly and all he came up with is ‘I think therefore I am.’

The last post I read said this:

‘the irrefutable FACT is that someone/something (God) had to start the process!’

I don’t think thats true. Religion explains the unexplainable. If we all lived in anchient Egypt maybe someone would say ‘the irrefutable FACT is that the sun would not move across the sky unless it was on the back of a giant scarab bettle.’

Anyway, the point is, prove isn’t necessary. Evolution is a beautiful theory and it fits prefectly with the world around us. It is such a simple idea and yet it took genius to finnally see it. Prehaps its so amazing it needed a God to design.

Someone posted a message saying we should only teach children fact in school until such a time as they are developed enough to think through matters properly (or something along those lines). If children arn’t thaught to really think for themselves from a young age, how are they possibly going to develop? Children should be challanged and should be exposed to challanging ideas. What they choise to believe is up to them. They shouldn’t be told they are wrong if they believe in evolution they should be let make their mind up. How can anyone else be certain they know better?

 

[Jennifer_J]

Hi everyone,

This is my first post, but evolution is a topic that really interests me so I think this is as good as any place to start.

I’ve just been reading through some of the previous posts in this topic and there is one thing I find quite interesting. A lot of people who seem anti evolution are those that are least informed about it. Surely it would be far better to make sure you are really clued up on the facts (and theories) of evolution before telling someone they are wrong. Thats the only way to have a meaningful debate. The distrinction between Apes and Ape like creatures such as Homo erectus is very important when thinking about evolution. This is because if you believe we evolved from Apes it suggests one group of Apes stayed still while another just evolved off. Evolution is a continuous process. Even now we are evolving and evolution will always occur as organisms react to changes in the environment and the evolution of other organisms.

Evolution demonstrates the flexability of life to change. I think this is the problem most creationalists have with it. They don’t like the idea that humans have changed, how could they be ‘in God’s image’? Personally I don’t see this condradicts religious believe. I don’t believe there was a first human. I don’t think the creation story in the bible is literal and I don’t believe human kind evolved from two humans. If Adam and Eve were the first two humans to have a soul were they a different specise to their parents? There was no switch from amimal to human in evolutionary history, and scientifically speaking there is nothing biological to seperate us from animals except prehaps one of our most important adaptations: intelligence. In terms of religion this is whats important. While there never was a first human, over time we obtained the ability to recognise ourselves, to be self aware and eventually we developed societies and morals.

Up till now I’ve been speaking as if evolution was definatly a fact and I believe it is. Proof of evolution has been mentioned but this is really a flawed argument against evolution. How do you prove religion? You don’t. It is a matter of faith. It can’t be proved either way. Even scientifical proof is never definate. Can you prove gravity exists? You actually can’t. Prehaps God is holding us to the Earth. Once Rene Decarte desided to list all the things that could be proved definatly and all he came up with is ‘I think therefore I am.’

The last post I read said this:

‘the irrefutable FACT is that someone/something (God) had to start the process!’

I don’t think thats true. Religion explains the unexplainable. If we all lived in anchient Egypt maybe someone would say ‘the irrefutable FACT is that the sun would not move across the sky unless it was on the back of a giant scarab bettle.’

Anyway, the point is, prove isn’t necessary. Evolution is a beautiful theory and it fits prefectly with the world around us. It is such a simple idea and yet it took genius to finnally see it. Prehaps its so amazing it needed a God to design.

Someone posted a message saying we should only teach children fact in school until such a time as they are developed enough to think through matters properly (or something along those lines). If children arn’t thaught to really think for themselves from a young age, how are they possibly going to develop? Children should be challanged and should be exposed to challanging ideas. What they choise to believe is up to them. They shouldn’t be told they are wrong if they believe in evolution they should be let make their mind up. How can anyone else be certain they know better?

If you’re Catholic, the church insists you must believe there were 2 First Parents created by God, and that Genesis teaches us important truths about us and God and our relationship to each other. Also, what most seperates us from animals is not necessarily intelligence, it’s our SOUL. God created us in His image, which is not necessarily how we look, but our soul created to be with Him for eternity. You really need to do more research into what the CHURCH teaches about this topic. Again, science and religion aren’t mutually exclusive. We can be Catholic and believe that evolution was a process used to create us and other animals.

Jennifer

 

[BLB_Oregon]

I have no such “notions” that I need relief from, thanks.

I do not think that evolution is atheistic per se, but that it is used or interpreted by prominent scientists (whose names you will see in the secular press) as an excuse to suppport their atheism and recruit others to it. Of course this is contrary to our Holy Fathers’ teaching. And since they use evolution to support their atheism, they have an interest in it being taught in public schools with no discussion of the weaknesses of the theory.

Before the moderators decide to move this thread, I’ll end my part in the discussion.

I have no problem with objecting when the leap is made from science to fuel for an unrelated agenda. That doesn’t argue in favor of removing that science from the curriculum or in favor of introducing something that is not science, but which provides fuel for an opposing agenda. All that does is provide fodder for those who accuse the religious of travelling the same road that put Galileo under house arrest.

If you’re Catholic, the church insists you must believe there were 2 First Parents created by God, and that Genesis teaches us important truths about us and God and our relationship to each other. Also, what most seperates us from animals is not necessarily intelligence, it’s our SOUL. God created us in His image, which is not necessarily how we look, but our soul created to be with Him for eternity. You really need to do more research into what the CHURCH teaches about this topic. Again, science and religion aren’t mutually exclusive. We can be Catholic and believe that evolution was a process used to create us and other animals.

Jennifer

Actually, I don’t think that the Church does require that you believe that Adam and Eve were real individuals, but only that the account of the Fall provides a true account of the relationship between God and humans. In fact, the Church expressly does not require a Catholic to believe that Genesis or any other book in the Bible was written as a historical treatise in the scientific sense, for the original authors would not have felt a need to write Truth under those constraints.

This is not to say that one can assume it is not ever literally true from a scientific sense, either! Miracles do happen…which is to say that in our own experience, there are things that happen for which science can offer no explanation. If it fits in our minds, be assured that it is not Reality with the big “R” in general, nor God in particular, that you have imagined.

Be that as it may, the last time I checked the biologists were saying that there is evidence that there was a literal mother of us all, from whom all women can be traced, and that there was a literal father of us all, from whom all men can be traced. We are all biologically brothers and sisters. Which is nice…but I wouldn’t let it upset me if science were to say otherwise. I know who my brothers and sisters are, in the deepest sense of revealed Truth, and that is all that matters.

 

[skuld]

Sounds like one cool kid! You should be proud! You have raised an intelligent thinker!

If the original poster’s kid really believes that men came from apes, then he’s far from being an intelligent thinker. As someone has stated, science doesn’t even teach such thing. It is one of the most common misconceptions regarding evolution.

 

[Jake_Ellison]

The Catholic Church definatly doesn’t require me to believe in two first parents. I have spoken to my parish priest about this. He says Genisis is not necessarily a literal truth. Maybe we can draw important lessons for it. I think the most important purpose of Genisis was to counter ideas that creation was left to lesser gods or actually done by evil. Genisis tells us there is one God and that he created everything and ‘saw it was good.’

If there is a literal mother and a literal father we would all be traced from them equally, not the men from the father and the women from the mother. How far back do we go to find this mother and father? Certainly further then anything recognisably human or even close. Human population has got down to about 1000 in the past but we need more then two individuals for a healthy gene pool. There wouldn’t be a point in human evolution when there were two humans and the rest of the race came from that. Of course that doesn’t mean we aren’t all related just means we have to go way, way back.

The idea of the soul being in Gods image if not the body unites evolution and religion even more, but there is one important point about scientific evolution that hasn’t been mentioned yet. Evolution is not a directional progress. There is no end point or standard to which evolution aspires. All it is is the changes organisms make to suit their environments (over a very long time scale). Variation in environments leads to different selective pressure in different places and eventually different species that cannot interbreed. Humans will have evolved due to our adaptations being suited to the environment alowing us to repoduces and spread advantagous genes (basically speaking). However, in this scientific veiw of evolution humans could very well have not existed if environmental conditions hadn’t been right to push for our evolution. If time was set from the begginning we most likely would never have existed at all, as it would have been random mutations that lead to our evolution in the first place.

Clearly this idea is not compatable with religious ones. Religiously we believe we are specail and this cannot be the case if we are here by chance. I have to admit I do follow this scientific view of religion. I was bought up a Catholic and have been a Catholic for most of my life, but now I’m finding it harder and harder to believe. I don’t fully agree with all of the teachings of the church and I’m not sure whether or not I should call myself an atheist. I do have a great respect for Catholisism, my family are Catholics and alot of my friends are. I still go to church on Sundays, and I’ve been told by one of my Catholic friends that this is acceptable for socail reasons even if I don’t believe myself. I am intersted in knowing more about Catholic opinions and this is mainly what drew me to this site.

When I knew I believed in God I used to think religion and science were compatable. I still do to an extent and I’ve always believed evolution to be fact. I had never really thought about how easily humans could not have existed as a Catholic, and I’m sure most of you won’t agree that evolution was not directed towards the appearance of man. I think that is the difference between scientific evolution and evolution with some imput from God. I also think that imput from God can be seperated from Intelligent Design. I always believed God set evlution up to run knowing how it would turn out. I never believed that he made breif apperances to push it in one direction or another.

As for the common misconception, just because the original posters son thinks humans came from Apes that doesn’t mean he isn’t intelligent. All he needs its more teaching so he understands the theory better. The point that hes thinking is the important thing. Everyone makes mistakes and have gaps in their knowledge at some point, people don’t know everything just like that.

 

[Em_in_FL]

If there is a literal mother and a literal father we would all be traced from them equally, not the men from the father and the women from the mother. How far back do we go to find this mother and father? Certainly further then anything recognisably human or even close. Human population has got down to about 1000 in the past but we need more then two individuals for a healthy gene pool. There wouldn’t be a point in human evolution when there were two humans and the rest of the race came from that. Of course that doesn’t mean we aren’t all related just means we have to go way, way back.

Do some research on “mitochondrial eve”…
Genetically, all human beings can be traced back to one woman.

 

[BLB_Oregon]

Do some research on “mitochondrial eve”…
Genetically, all human beings can be traced back to one woman.

Likewise, I have heard that there are features of the Y chromosome that argue strongly for a single male ancestor.

That doesn’t mean that the two knew each other, however. How far apart the two were estimated to have existed in time or place, I have no idea…and it is, after all, an estimate. (Still, a million years or something like that would be a bit outside the error bars.)

Nevertheless, the genetic archeologists do seem to have the impression from their data that we are all descended from a man and a woman that would both be described as unequivocally human, rather than from separate shoots of a common “ape-like” ancestor.

Were that the case, though–that is, if the data indicated that the different races arose from different species of ape-like animals that could not be described as human–there remains the unequivocal Truth taught in Genesis: that all other humans should be considered sons of Adam and daughters of Eve. We are all the adopted children of God, through Jesus Christ, all made in the image and likeness of God, all alike in dignity and worth. By God’s will, we breathe a life breathed into us by the Holy Spirit which is not found in any of the other animals, nor even in the angels. Even hard scientific facts that, if such were possible, proved that this is true in spirit only, and not physically, would still not change that.

These are the things we need to teach our children: that is, on what subjects Sacred Tradition is the undisputable authority.

As for atheists not believing what they can’t see or touch, it is amusing to recall that in The Screwtape Letters, CS Lewis’ demon advises a young tempter to fill his “patient” (prey) with the idea that he knows all about science and with all sorts of half-baked ideas pulled from science to back up an atheistic agenda, but under all circumstances to keep the patient away from any real science, which is chock full of unseeable things like electrons and protons, the reality of which no one in science disputes. As I think he put it, “There have been some sad cases among the physicists.”

 

[Jennifer_J]

Here’s what Catholic Answers says about Adam and Eve
catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

<<Adam and Eve: Real People

It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).

The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “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. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390). >>

I’d suggest everyone do a bit more research into what the Church actually requires us to believe about this topic.

Jennifer

 

[Jake_Ellison]

Mitochondrial Eve was not the first human being. Nor was she alone with her partner ‘Adam’. In my last post I spoke about the gene pool and the point when the human population of the world deminished possibly as low as 1000 individuals. This doesn’t mean they are the first 1000, the population was higher at some point before this. All it means was that for some reason a bottleneck in the population occured.

Mitochondrial Eve is one of these 1000 individuals. While the theory of Mitochondrail Eve says that we are all decendants of hers, it does not mean we are not decendants of some of the other 1000 individuals. Some women living with Mitochondrial Eve will have decendands living today representing a proportion of the world population, others, like Mitochondrial Eve, may be ancestors of the entire race.

The important thing about Mitochondrial Eve is that she had a selective advantage to survive. Some gene she possesed made her more likly to survie the conditions at the time and this was passed down to her children. Her children would have breed with other members of the population and their children would have had the advantage.

Even if this advantage was incredable small, the population at the time was so tiny that quickly this gene has spread through the entire population. Once this happens every human is a decendant of Mitochondrial Eve. This doesn’t make her the mother of all humans but does mean we all are her decendants.

Mitochondrial Eve was not the first ‘Eve’ and possibly might not be the last. She is just the most recent common ancestor we have. The same process that I described would have occured before Mitochondrial Eve, with all the 1000 individuals in her bottle neck decendant from some distant ‘Eve.’

Mitochondria are inherited from your mother. I think this is because when a sperm and ova join, the ova is the larger cell and therefore contains the mitochondria while the sperm does not. Remember that mitochondria reproduces themselves and originated when a single celled organism ingulfed a smalled organism (the mitochndria) and formed a symboitic relationship. This happened way before anything like the species we know today evolved.

The Y chromosome is the paternal link as only males have it. If we trace humans back to one man via the Y chromosome, the most recent man to be everyones ancestor lived around 10,000 years ago. He was not the first ‘Adam’ but was the most recent. Mitochondrial Eve lived somewhere between 200,000 and 150,000 years ago. Our Adam and Eve from which we are decended lived anywhere between 140,000 and 190,000 years apart.

That is the basic idea of the Mitochondrial Eve theory as I understand it, very likly to be true beyond reasonable doubt but to prove it every single person on the plant would need there mitochondrial DNA analised.

 

[Jake_Ellison]

In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).

According to Genisis we are decended from two people. I don’t see this is possible and have never been abl to see it. Maybe you could help and tell me how it would work. This is a discussion I’ve had a number of times with one of my friends who also believes we are decended from two people and we’ve never been able to reach a conclusion. This is what the bible says:

In Gen.4,8 Cain kills Able.

Gen.4, 14-15 states this: '“You are driving me off the land and away from your presence. I will be a homeless wanderer on the earth, and anyone who finds me will kill me.”
‘But the LORD answered, “No. If anyone kills you seven lives will be taken in revenge.” So the LORD put a mark on Cain to warn anyone who met him not to kill him.’

So far it doesn’t seem to fit. Who is going to kill Cain? I thought he was one of three people alive? If he is killed how will seven lives be taken? Before you get half way there humans are extinct.

Gen.4,17 ‘Cain and his wife had a son and named him Enoch. Then Cain built a city and named it after his son.’

Who is Cains wife? My friend who I have had this discussion with before says she is his sister and that this is morally acceptable because God has not given any moral laws yet. Is this true?

In Gen. 5 it talks about other children of Adam asides from their three sons. I’ve read this as occuring after Seth was born when Adam was 130, but Adam and Eve must have had daughters around the time of Cain and Able, they just arn’t mentioned (my friend says).

I really want to know how this works. Is Genisis to be taken literally, or is it metaphrical? If its literal how is it possible based on its own words, if its metaphorical surly we don’t have to be decendands of a single pair of humans.

 

[Jennifer_J]

I think I have an answer for you but I have to do a bit of re-research to jog the memory and right now I have to go pick children up from school. It may be late this evening before I can answer this. You also might want to search the forums for the millions of posts on evolution/adam and eve/genesis

God bless,
Jennifer

 

[Jake_Ellison]

Thanks very much!

I may not be able to read it till tommorow afternoon, I live in Britian and it will probably be pretty late here by then. I’m not sure what the time differece between here and America is. Also I’ll be at school myself most of tommorow!

 

[Jennifer_J]

Here are a few resources, I’m not sure they’ll answer your questions directly

bringyou.to/apologetics/p100.htm

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=119263&highlight=adam+parents

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0401bt.asp

Here’s what I think about the verses you mentioned, though I’m not scholar and it’s just my thoughts. We don’t know how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden. For all we know they started a family right away and had many children before the fall. The gospel writer didn’t mention every child, just those that furthered the story. I would imagine that the purity of the genes they were passing on would make it possible for what we consider inbreeding to not be a problem. Additionally, God gives Eve the punishment that childbirth would be painful (or more work, however you look at it) from now on this indicates she would know that childbirth could be painless or at least not painful in the way we now know it.

From what I’ve gathered about Catholic teaching–we should read Genesis knowing it’s written using a specific story telling device, yet it provides us with knowlege of God and human’s relationship to Him. It’s not history or science as we know it, but it does provide us with important religious truths.
I don’t know if this makes any sense. I’m sure there must be a document somewhere that spells this out, I just can’t seem to find it right now. (sick children, not enough time)

I hope this hasn’t taken this thread too far a field. You really should us the search feature and see what else you can find on the forum here.

Jennifer

 

[Durendin]

You needn’t dig too deep to answer this one.

Ape to man, based on what? We’ve also got some 80% of the same DNA that you’ll find in a banana, but that doesn’t mean it went banana to ape and then ape to man! It’s simply what life is composed of, regardless of form.

Spirit on the other hand?

 

[Jake_Ellison]

You needn’t dig too deep to answer this one.

Ape to man, based on what? We’ve also got some 80% of the same DNA that you’ll find in a banana, but that doesn’t mean it went banana to ape and then ape to man! It’s simply what life is composed of, regardless of form.

Spirit on the other hand?

The point the scientific theory makes is that we did NOT go from Ape to man, we meerly shared a common ancestor. Bananas share 80% of their DNA with us but no scientist would ever say we evolved from bananas. We split (evolutionarly speaking) from bananas (or what went on to evolve into bananas) a very, very long time ago. Apes share more of there DNA with us because the species diverged a shorter time period ago.

Sharing 80% of our DNA with a banana doesnt really mean anything at all. The vast majority of our DNA does not code for proteins, and as far as scientists can tell it has no use. This is ‘junk DNA’ and we may share a lot of this with bananas. Its the other 20% that makes us different.

Life is composed of the same stuff regardless of the form, but I see this as supporting evolution rather then opposing it. God created laws of physics and chemistry that the majority accept. Why not accept his laws of biology? The make sence in theory and have even been shown to work in practise.

 

[Jake_Ellison]

From what I’ve gathered about Catholic teaching–we should read Genesis knowing it’s written using a specific story telling device, yet it provides us with knowlege of God and human’s relationship to Him. It’s not history or science as we know it, but it does provide us with important religious truths.

Jennifer

I would definatly agree that Genisis is more about religious truth then historical or scientific thruth, and I’ll take a look at those resources.

Hope you children feel better soon!

 

[leonie]

According to Genisis we are decended from two people. I don’t see this is possible and have never been abl to see it. Maybe you could help and tell me how it would work. This is a discussion I’ve had a number of times with one of my friends who also believes we are decended from two people and we’ve never been able to reach a conclusion. This is what the bible says:

In Gen.4,8 Cain kills Able.

Gen.4, 14-15 states this: '“You are driving me off the land and away from your presence. I will be a homeless wanderer on the earth, and anyone who finds me will kill me.”
‘But the LORD answered, “No. If anyone kills you seven lives will be taken in revenge.” So the LORD put a mark on Cain to warn anyone who met him not to kill him.’

I’ve never thought that Cain was in the first generation, but was indeed the first murderer.

So far it doesn’t seem to fit. Who is going to kill Cain? I thought he was one of three people alive? If he is killed how will seven lives be taken? Before you get half way there humans are extinct.

Gen.4,17 ‘Cain and his wife had a son and named him Enoch. Then Cain built a city and named it after his son.’

Who is Cains wife? My friend who I have had this discussion with before says she is his sister and that this is morally acceptable because God has not given any moral laws yet. Is this true?

In Gen. 5 it talks about other children of Adam asides from their three sons. I’ve read this as occuring after Seth was born when Adam was 130, but Adam and Eve must have had daughters around the time of Cain and Able, they just arn’t mentioned (my friend says).

I really want to know how this works. Is Genisis to be taken literally, or is it metaphrical? If its literal how is it possible based on its own words, if its metaphorical surly we don’t have to be decendands of a single pair of humans.

I’ve never believed that Cain was in the first generation. I believe he was the first murderer.