“countless eons”? A bit broad, don’t you think? The document Communion and Stewardship clearly states that without God’s direct causal action such a thing as evolution simply cannot exist. “But it is also true that evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.” - Pope BenedictOf course – that’s why it is an analogy! Let me spell it out:
My being born was contingent on the chance fertilization one egg by one sperm. That’s does not alter my belief that God willed me.
The evolution of the human species was contingent upon the chance fertilization of many eggs by many sperm over countless eons, and the chance survival of parents and their transmission of characteristics to their offspring. That’s does not alter my belief that God willed the human species.
StAnastasia
I do understand your point about the third kingdom. And you are right about the need to have a foundation - that means exploring the details of things.So, I was asking how the discovery of a third kingdom is a good foundation for separating chimps and humans?
Alec
evolutionpages.com
As is every scientist worth her salt.“But it is also true that evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.” - Pope Benedict. I am with the Pope on that.Peace,Ed
Granny, there are enormous differences between parrots and other animals; between Moray eels and other animals; between Praying mantises and other animals. These differences may be accounted for without resorting to “sole parents.” You will never, ever find a zoological reason to postulate this, nor genetic eidence of its having happened. Nor is there a theological reason to postulate it.As I look at the details of humanity, I see so many differences between us and other animals. This indicates that the divergence of Homo sapiens needs to be reevaluated in terms of possible sole parents.]
When I look at the details of humanity, I see many differences between Homo sapiens and other critters. What is the source of these differences? Genetically, it had to be a strong source to develop the bone structure for walking upright instead of flying.Granny, there are enormous differences between parrots and other animals; between Moray eels and other animals; between Praying mantises and other animals. These differences may be accounted for without resorting to “sole parents.” You will never, ever find a zoological reason to postulate this, nor genetic eidence of its having happened. Nor is there a theological reason to postulate it.
StAnastasia
There are many differences between elephants and ants. What is the source of these differences? As with any lineage the “source” is allele variation, operated on by natural selection. That goes for ape-chimp/human as for any succession. no need to find a different operator to explain human erect walking.When I look at the details of humanity, I see many differences between Homo sapiens and other critters. What is the source of these differences? Genetically, it had to be a strong source to develop the bone structure for walking upright instead of flying.
You are basically on the right track. The nature of man, rational animal, accounts for his sole parents. Or, we can say that we have “soul parents”, parents with a rational soul, which all humans possess, and which sets them apart from the rest of the animal kingdom.I do understand your point about the third kingdom. And you are right about the need to have a foundation - that means exploring the details of things.
Would you consider as a foundation ---- that the possibility of sole parents of the human race lays within the nature of the human species?
Thank you.You are basically on the right track. The nature of man, rational animal, accounts for his sole parents. Or, we can say that we have “soul parents”, parents with a rational soul, which all humans possess, and which sets them apart from the rest of the animal kingdom.
The Darwinian prejudice against the human mind still reigns influential in science, and it accounts for the continued inclusion of man in the same kingdom with other animals. In the “Descent of Man” Darwin said that the mind of man differs in degree only from that of higher animals. This has radical implications for how man is viewed. The Darwinian revolution made man into a brute animal.
However, we know that man has a rational soul. His intellect sets him apart from the rest of the animal kingdom. Man is a species that differs radically in kind from the anthropoid apes and higher animals. Man does not differ in degree only as one animal does from another.
Propositional speech is one characteristic that only man possesses and it is significant enough and defining enough to merit his own kingdom.
Of course, the human body is intimately related to lower animal forms, but the mind of man is spiritual, and therefore it is not a product of the natural biological processes that produced his physical nature. To put man in the same kingdom with animals involves a tacit denial of his spiritual soul, which makes a human being what he is.
Curious: your proposal was not discussed by any of the theologians at the Vatican conference last March.Of course, the human body is intimately related to lower animal forms, but the mind of man is spiritual, and therefore it is not a product of the natural biological processes that produced his physical nature. To put man in the same kingdom with animals involves a tacit denial of his spiritual soul, which makes a human being what he is.
It is a position held by certain members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. What meaning your remark is intended to convey remains ambiguous.Curious: your proposal was not discussed by any of the theologians at the Vatican conference last March.
Just so.I do understand your point about the third kingdom. And you are right about the need to have a foundation - that means exploring the details of things.
Of course. If there is anything that we can show in the nature of the human species that is evidence for two sole parents then that is a foundation for the proposition. However, I know of nothing in the nature of the species that compels one to conclude that humans descend from two sole parents and a great deal that makes such a proposition untenable.Would you consider as a foundation ---- that the possibility of sole parents of the human race lays within the nature of the human species?
There are differences, and big differences but I see them as differences of effect not cause, of degree not kind. There is nothing that indicates to me that those (mainly cognitive) differences did not evolve in an entirely natural way in a population of hominims which is just what the science indicates.As I look at the details of humanity, I see so many differences between us and other animals. This indicates that the divergence of Homo sapiens needs to be reevaluated in terms of possible sole parents.
I don’t know how to interpret the question about the “location” of free-will except to say that it is one of the human cogntive features and so if it is located anywhere, it is in the brain. What Desmurget et al show is that the experience of free-will or intention can be triggered by physical stimulation of the brain which supports the notion that free-will as exercised and experienced is a phenomenon with material roots.Regarding the sense of selfdom, like the unique identity of a tatter, it would flow from one’s nature or one’s being. While free will can be experienced individually, the question remains as to its location in one’s nature. The more I look at awake brain surgery, I see it failing to offer the evidence of " free will " being a phenomenon of the neurobiology - which is ultimately based on matter.
And what are your answers to these questions? Mine are yes and yes. Voluntary action is, as far as I see it, an example of free-will in action; and experience of choice is the classical example of experiencing free-will.The questions which would follow are – do experiments of voluntary action accurately reflect free will? And do all experiences of choice fit the requirements for free will?
Of course. If there is anything that we can show in the nature of the human species that is evidence for two sole parents then that is a foundation for the proposition.
Well, I am going to disagree with your assertion below that man deserves a kingdom of his own. But even if your assertion were true, how does that support the notion that extant humans descend from two sole parent (apart from the amusing pun)?. Even if humans have a non-material rational soul not possessed by other animals how does that preclude human ancestry from a population rather than two parents?The nature of man, rational animal, accounts for his sole parents. Or, we can say that we have “soul parents”, parents with a rational soul, which all humans possess, and which sets them apart from the rest of the animal kingdom.
Given the evidence that man is biologically an ape, a primate, a mammal, a tetrapod, a vertebrate, a chordate, a bilaterian, a metazoan, an opisthokont and a eukaryote, it seems not a prejudice but a conclusion that man is part of the eukaryotic domain and the metazoan kingdom.The Darwinian prejudice against the human mind still reigns influential in science, and it accounts for the continued inclusion of man in the same kingdom with other animals.
No - the Darwinian revolution didn’t *make *man into an animal - Darwinian evolution *recognises *the fact that man is an animal, related to and descended from other animals.In the “Descent of Man” Darwin said that the mind of man differs in degree only from that of higher animals. This has radical implications for how man is viewed. The Darwinian revolution made man into a brute animal.
These are, of course, mere assertions. You cannot know that man has a rational soul, if by that you mean an immaterial entity that stands separate from and above the cognitive abilities that arise from his material brain, because there is no evidence to support such a concept. The so-called rational soul is a label attached to what appears to be mysterious human cognitive abilities - it is an entity of a gap in knowledge (a bit like a personal Thor). You choose to believe that man differs in kind and not in degree, but this is a sentimental anthropocentricity. Man differs markedly in degree, and has some attributes not shared by other animals, but there is no reason to conclude that these attributes arise other than from physical brain, evolved through purely natural processes. On the contrary, all of the attributes that are assigned to the rational soul, are present only where there is a working human brain - the physical brain is necesssary for these cognitive processes, and there is no reason to think that it is not also sufficient.However, we know that man has a rational soul. His intellect sets him apart from the rest of the animal kingdom. Man is a species that differs radically in kind from the anthropoid apes and higher animals. Man does not differ in degree only as one animal does from another.
Biologists would almost universally disagree. Quite apart from the fact that other animals possess proto-lanuage, man belongs to the eukaryotic kingdom (plants, animals, fungi, protists etc etc) based on the structure of the cell. Other animals possess cognitive abilities that man does not, but we do not put them in a separate kingdom for that reason. Even if I accept the proposition, as I am inclined to do, that only man possesses true language, that does not suggest that man has some special spiritual mind that stands above his neurobiology. On the contrary, mankind’s language ability (speaking and understanding) depends fundamentally on a properly working brain, with functioning speech centres. This can affected or destroyed by genetics (see for example the story of FOXP2: evolutionpages.com/FOXP2_language.htm), by physical trauma, by chemicals and drugs, by stroke, by electrical stimulation, by lesion, by disease. It is like every other attribute that is supposed to arise from the human immaterial rational soul - they all depend on the material brain - everything that makes a person a person from personality to abstract thinking needs the brain.Propositional speech is one characteristic that only man possesses and it is significant enough and defining enough to merit his own kingdom.
But the evidence is against this assertion. We see that physical nature underpins his cognition and we see palaeontological evidence that the mind evolved gradually over time. Humans are animals (and if you wish to include the value word “brute”, that’s up to you), albeit ones with very special and highly evolved mental abilities.Of course, the human body is intimately related to lower animal forms, but the mind of man is spiritual, and therefore it is not a product of the natural biological processes that produced his physical nature.
Actually in the same domain with animals, plants, algae, fungi and protists…it is man’s biology, which includes his central nervous system, that makes a human being what he is.To put man in the same kingdom with animals involves a tacit denial of his spiritual soul, which makes a human being what he is.
I think the point that Granny and itinerant are making, and it’s a fair one, is that there is a big difference between humans and our closest biological cousins. I don’t think that either deny the fact that the differences between ants and elephants, or chimps and yeast, can be explained by variation and selection over time, but they question whether the cognitive differences between humans and chimps can be explained thus.There are many differences between elephants and ants. What is the source of these differences? As with any lineage the “source” is allele variation, operated on by natural selection. That goes for ape-chimp/human as for any succession. no need to find a different operator to explain human erect walking.
Alec, if “the development of bipedalism does not require any special “source” over and above the natural evolutionary ones,” why does the development of neural complexity leading to rational self-awareness, artistic sensitivity,moral awareness, and religious consciousness require a special source?I think the point that Granny and itinerant are making, …it is not difference per se but the nature of the difference and its appearance in apparently closely biologically related species that they point to. Naturally, I agree with you that the development of bipedalism does not require any special “source” over and above the natural evolutionary ones. Alec
Quick question.I’m a proponent of “both / and” explanations – both nature and God.
StAnastasia
Grannymh, of what event are you thinking?Quick question. Granted “both / and” explanations are usually the best, what would be your advice to a young university student who is caught between two explanations for the same event, one from nature and one from church, which unequivocally contradict each other.
Well, as you know, I don’t think it does, but I am acknowledging the fact that explaining some of the hard questions of consciousness and human cognition by reference to a purely material brain is a bigger ask than something like bipedalism (if only because human consciousness is so complex and inherently mysterious), and because the things that make us uniquely human are hugely more developed in us than in our nearest relations - and that means that the huge difference must have evolved in 6 million years. I think your view of the situation coincides with mine and is correct, but I don’t think that pointing to differences between distantly related taxa as an analogue of the human case is compelling for those who are having difficulty in apprehending our point of view.Alec, if “the development of bipedalism does not require any special “source” over and above the natural evolutionary ones,” why does the development of neural complexity leading to rational self-awareness, artistic sensitivity,moral awareness, and religious consciousness require a special source?
So am I - in a similar but not identical sense.In any case, the evolution of these traits is a biological question. It neither relies upon nor excludes a theology of the human person. My theological anthropology is not threatened by natural explanations. I’m a proponent of “both / and” explanations – both nature and God.
We see your point…Does “non-ape ancestry of humans” sound like Genesis 2: 7
Please refer to the followingBoth our intention and our experience of what we call free will arise entirely from neurobiological processes in the brain.
.There is no such thing as “random natural selection” which you would know if you had the slightest acquaintance with evolutionary biology. Mutations are random with respect to fitness, but natural selection is not random
Then give evidence why the alleles are mutants and not variants.The idea that alleles of beta-globin are not of mutational origin is absurd - there are over 1300 known abnormal haemoglobins of which HbC is just one
Relativity is a contradiction from the get-go: the twin age contradiction is just one case.Except that both special and general relativity is tested every day in multiple ways and it passes every test.
I’m still waiting to see how you try to explain the centrifugal and Coriolis forces on a static earth having rejected GR.
Yes, on this modest little thread, there are rules of evidence, posted and enforced from the start. Shocking, isn’t it? So cruel to shackle the free spirits who roam the forum and opine without being called to account.There is no such thing as “thread rules”.
No, brother, this isn’t a thesis research project. If evolution is about species change, then give us all a brief definition of how to classify any life form into a “species” category.While not denying that there is a species problem may I point you to textbooks on evolutionary biology where you will find all the evidence that you require. …
No, they can’t, for with no definition of species, there is no meaning to evolution of species! We might as well discuss the evolution of frammistans.Evolutionary biologists can demonstrate the key points of evolutionary theory (descent with modification, selection and common descent) even if no agreed concept of species existed.
Exactly so. Neither creationists nor evols can provide experimental evidence required by the scientific method. Scientifically there is nothing provable about the past without testing… in the past.…creationists claim that evolution cannot change one kind or baramin into another, or generate a new kind or baramin. But no two creationists can agree on a definition of these terms, or suggest an evolutionary limitation that stops evolutionary modification precisely at whatever arbitrary boundary they propose.
Guy Berthault presented his experimental laboratory and field research which refute the fundamental principles of Lyellian geology and demonstrate that massive sedimentary rock formations around the world could have formed in a fraction of the time allocated to them by the conventional time scale.Code:See here for a thorough demolition of Bethault's delusions of grandeur: [evolutionpages.com/berthault_critique.htm](http://www.evolutionpages.com/berthault_critique.htm)
The thread allows 3 types of evidence : theology, philosophy, science. The only caveat is that theology can’t be used to give scientific evidence, nor vice versa.… neatly sidestepped here by those who do not allow a mixing of the purely scientific with religion.
Or even to how we came to be the beings we are.… you can give no evolutionary explanation on how we have come to be thinking beings.’
To be credible evol must follow the scientific method.But for evolution theory to have any credibility it must be able to show how human intelligence evolved…
Just as many as pix of macro-evolution occurring in the past.Lots of lightning strikes along the mid-Atlantic ridge. I guess you have photos of these underwater lightning strikes?