There are certainly fossils of creatures that have died and some species of animal is likely to die out during our lifetime, but the lack of transitional forms appears to be the issue. I looked at a photo of an insect trapped in amber. It was beautiful. Imagine having wings, legs and compound eyes. I don’t think it would have done as well if it had wings so small that it could not support itself in flight.
You can observe evolution right now. How many children are genetically identical to their parents?
Oh come on brother. That’s not evidence that worms turned into humans.
Why? Where does evolution necessitate that human beings originated from a population and not a set of parents? And even if it does, why can’t God not select two and ensoul them? So then Adam and Eve are the first people that are our ultimate parents. Even if science concludes that there was a homo sapien population. That doesn’t mean that we didn’t still come from a single set of parents.In order for a person to say that nothing in the science of human evolution contradicts Catholic doctrines, one would have to change Divine Revelation.
Catholics know that a “population” did not commit Original Sin.
Again, how does this contradict Catholic teaching? I’m still holding that we all came from a single set of parents. I’m only suggesting that evolution could scientifically explain how God created Adam and Eve.That bit of information about the “ancient human population” directly contradicts the Catholic doctrines regarding human origin. Not only does Catholicism teach that we come from a “set of parents” – it teaches that we come from a set consisting of the first two humans alive.Catholics know that a “population” did not commit Original Sin.
Read it. I do not see how one has to accept the Homo/Pan split in order to believe in the basic concept of evolution. Nor do I see the relevance one way or the other to Catholic teaching.
Again, how does this contradict Catholic teaching? I’m still holding that we all came from a single set of parents. I’m only suggesting that evolution could scientifically explain how God created Adam and Eve.
Very much agreed!
It is not that hard to reconcile the statements made in the Mitochondrial Eve theory and Church teaching. Simply realize that what the Mitochondrial Eve proponents call “humans” are not necessarily humans according to the Church’s definition. All scientists can say about “humans” relates to physically observable characteristics - the shape of their bones, the food they ate, the tools they used. They cannot tell if a fossil had a soul. So when they say “Studies indicate that the size of the ancient human population never dropped below tens of thousands.” we need to see those ancient populations as being comprised of a mixture of humans and pre-humans. The pre-humans that lived at the same time as Adam and Eve, although appearing in the fossil record to be the same as Adam and Eve, were in fact not human in the same sense that Adam and Eve were. They did not have an eternal soul. Only Adam and Eve did. We don’t need to discard the single pair of parents revelation. We don’t need to discard the revelation about original sin. We don’t need to discard any divine revelation in order to accept the raw scientific facts of the Mitochondrial Eve theory. Now if some people take that theory and try to draw conclusions from it that contradict Church teaching, they are departing from pure science.In order for a person to say that nothing in the science of human evolution contradicts Catholic doctrines, one would have to change Divine Revelation.
Catholics know that a “population” did not commit Original Sin.
You are good regarding the 1987 Eve theory. Now hold that thought.
Unfortunately, I do not have the original 1987 research paper with me, so let’s use this information from the Wikipedia article.
Studies indicate that the size of the ancient human population never dropped below tens of thousands.
That bit of information about the “ancient human population” directly contradicts the Catholic doctrines regarding human origin. Not only does Catholicism teach that we come from a “set of parents” – it teaches that we come from a set consisting of the first two humans alive. First two is definitely not the same as a population in the thousands. In addition, some interpreters, not necessarily the author of a particular research paper, like to refer to any anatomy which has some similar characteristics to the modern human anatomy as part of our ancestral human line.
Would you kindly re-read post 70? forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11811235&postcount=70
That was the start of re-examining some of the basic principles of evolution theory. Principles are usually part of the introduction in student classes focused on the science of human evolution or in general science classes which include plants, porcupines and people’s anatomies.
Are you able to discern the difference between natural science and Catholic doctrines based on Divine Revelation? Questions are welcomed.
It happens all the time and for good reason. Just asserting that God selected two almost humans and gave them souls cannot be demonstrated by science. Science cannot detect or study the soul. This idea is speculative fiction at best. But trust me, you’ll see plenty more threads like this in the future.
I did not say it was. I gave the definition of evolution upthread: “a change in the genome of a population”. As for worms into humans, you know as well as I do that there is is temporary ban here on the discussion of (macro-)evolution.
Micro-evolution is evolution – a change in the genome of a population.
Correct. Macro-evolution is part of the theory of evolution. Theories are not proved, they are only supported by evidence. This is basic science background; theories are never ever proved. All theories are provisional and can be tweaked as new evidence is found. Our theory of gravity is being tweaked as a result of the latest findings of polarisation in the CMBR.
It is indeed debated, but only one side of the debate has any scientific evidence to support it.
Again, how does this contradict Catholic teaching? I’m still holding that we all came from a single set of parents. I’m only suggesting that evolution could scientifically explain how God created Adam and Eve.
Well, to a degree this is true. On the other hand, evolutionists tend to regard evolution not as a theory, but as a fact. How else could Richard Dawkins claim that evolution had justified the dismissal of God as a reason for anything?
You are still a Catholic, but then you are committing the sin of heresy.
Evolution is both fact and theory. The theory explains the facts, just as the theory of gravity explains the facts of gravity.
Please see post 88.
Perhaps because no one knows what a theistic evolutionist is, well enough to claim to speak for them. But I think it is clear there are several in this thread who claim to believe in evolution of the human body from lower forms of life and who also accept as true, the doctrine that the human species was founded by two, sole, real, fully-complete human parents. Those people just don’t know if the label “theistic evolutionist” applies to them, which is why they did not answer your direct question.
You are confused. A notion cannot be both a fact and a theory.
Abiogenesis is no thorn in anybody’s side. Evolution is only a theory about how life evolves from other life. It does not need to explain how the first life evolved any more than it needs to explain the big bang. Those are topics that are simply outside of the scope of evolution.
These are valid questions. Here is one source of answers.
Correct. The English language is here using one word to describe two notions: evolution-as-fact and evolution-as-theory. In just the same way, “gravity” can mean gravity-as-fact and gravity-as-theory. The fault here is with the structure of the English language.
Correct. The theory of gravity is being amended as we speak due to the new facts about inflation recently discovered. The theory of evolution is always being amended to account for new facts of evolution as they are discovered.
No, it is not. Remember that Darwin called his book, “On the Origin of Species”. He did not call it “On the Origin of Life”. Abiogenesis is outside evolution, and has a lot more to do with chemistry. Evolution deals with changes in living populations. Abiogenesis deals with the origin of the first living population. Abiogenesis is no more a “thorn in the side” of evolution than stellar nucleosynthesis is a “thorn in the side” of chemistry. Abiogenesis explains the origin of material life. Stellar nucleosynthesis explains the origin of chemicals. In both cases the origin is separated off into a different field of science.
Correct. That is why abiogenesis is a separate subject, and one which involves a lot more pure chemistry than evolution. Currently the major problem with abiogenesis is the relative scarcity of facts and an oversupply of hypotheses. We have not yet arrived at an overall theory.
