Did we evolve from apes?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JJ59
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JJ59

Guest
Hi everyone.

Now, I just read the Catholic Answers Tract “Adam, Eve, and Evolution”. The Church teaches that Adam and Eve were real people. They were also our first parents.

My problem is, how is this reconcilable with the theory of evolution? Did we not evolve from apes? I mean, in my opinion, Adam and Eve did evolve from apes, but then as humans, they were finally given a soul (God making them “in his own image”.).

Can my viewpoint fit with Catholic doctrine? Does anyone have any other ideas as to our evolving from apes?

Thanks and God Bless.
 
I am a firm beliver is a evelutionary process. I don’t think it was apes but we & they may have a common ancestor. My Catholic Faith doesn’t get in the way of science. The Bible is a book of faith. I do not refer to it for matters of science.
 
Hi everyone.

Now, I just read the Catholic Answers Tract “Adam, Eve, and Evolution”. The Church teaches that Adam and Eve were real people. They were also our first parents.

My problem is, how is this reconcilable with the theory of evolution? Did we not evolve from apes? I mean, in my opinion, Adam and Eve did evolve from apes, but then as humans, they were finally given a soul (God making them “in his own image”.).

Can my viewpoint fit with Catholic doctrine? Does anyone have any other ideas as to our evolving from apes?

Thanks and God Bless.
Ah, good question. Herein lies a bit of a problem for Christians.

Basically was Adam and Eve real?

If they were, then we have to discount evolution, since they were the first, and naturally questions arise like where did Abel and Cain’s wives come from, etc…
If you say it’s a metaphor, then you gotta ask why the human race is being punished via concupiscence (Original sin) for two imaginary people…

Tough one…
 
Their wives were other unmentioned children of Adam and Eve.

I’m looking for a respnose please.

God Bless.
 
Can my viewpoint fit with Catholic doctrine? Does anyone have any other ideas as to our evolving from apes?
It’s important for you to understand that Evolutionary Theory does not posit that humans evolved from apes. It posits that apes and humans share a common ancestor and genetics proves it. Second, Evolution does not conflict with Christianity as long as the story of Creation is not taken literally.
 
Evolution says nothing about the human soul, including who were the first creatures to receive human souls (those would be the first humans, from a theological standpoint). So there’s no conflict at all.
 
Their wives were other unmentioned children of Adam and Eve.

I’m looking for a respnose please.

God Bless.
Yes, we evolved from apes. No question there.

No, the notion of Adam and Eve being the sole ancestors of all humans cannot be reconciled with science. The Adam and Eve myth is just your basic rationalization of why kids should be punished for the acts of their ancestors.
 
Evolution says nothing about the human soul, including who were the first creatures to receive human souls (those would be the first humans, from a theological standpoint). So there’s no conflict at all.
Exactly. Human Souls are imbued with reason and self-awareness. Before this happened in the evolutionary process, the common ancestor would have remained an animal. Adam and Eve, then, were the first to develope their rational thought and self-awareness… and thus were the first “humans” in the evolutionary chain.
 
Yes, we evolved from apes. No question there.

No, the notion of Adam and Eve being the sole ancestors of all humans cannot be reconciled with science. The Adam and Eve myth is just your basic rationalization of why kids should be punished for the acts of their ancestors.
Incorrect. Adam and Eve as real persons can easily be identified within evolutionary theory as an advancement in the species.
 
Ah, good question. Herein lies a bit of a problem for Christians.

Basically was Adam and Eve real?

If they were, then we have to discount evolution, since they were the first, and naturally questions arise like where did Abel and Cain’s wives come from, etc…
If you say it’s a metaphor, then you gotta ask why the human race is being punished via concupiscence (Original sin) for two imaginary people…

Tough one…
Not a tough one at all. God did not have a science textbook written. He did not start with a one-cell organism and describe in great detail every single development from that one cell to today’s 21st century life. Imagine the size of library it would require to detail every single change, environmental adaptation that occurred. That’s not what God’s revelation is about. I haven’t read any science book that describes God, why would one expect a book about the relationship of God to man need to have in-depth scientific facts? God gave us enough information for us to develop a relationship with Him.
If God created every form of life would it be incorrect for Him to say He created man from His hands, from clay? Well, since He created the clay and every form of life. Then He did indeed create man from the clay. What about His hands? Exactly what do God’s hands look like? His hands are every form He decides they are, every form of power, energy, and creativity.
How many ancient people would have read a book describing every detail of evolution from the first cell to humanity? NONE! So He had a book that would be understood written.
He had the book written knowing His audience.
 
Yes, we evolved from apes. No question there.
As has already been pointed out by people who know better, humans did not evolve from apes. Human evolutionary theory does not claim otherwise. As your grasp of science is shaky, so too is your grasp of theology.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
Not a tough one at all. God did not have a science textbook written. He did not start with a one-cell organism and describe in great detail every single development from that one cell to today’s 21st century life. Imagine the size of library it would require to detail every single change, environmental adaptation that occurred. That’s not what God’s revelation is about. I haven’t read any science book that describes God, why would one expect a book about the relationship of God to man need to have in-depth scientific facts? God gave us enough information for us to develop a relationship with Him.
If God created every form of life would it be incorrect for Him to say He created man from His hands, from clay? Well, since He created the clay and every form of life. Then He did indeed create man from the clay. What about His hands? Exactly what do God’s hands look like? His hands are every form He decides they are, every form of power, energy, and creativity.
How many ancient people would have read a book describing every detail of evolution from the first cell to humanity? NONE! So He had a book that would be understood written.
He had the book written knowing His audience.
So, in a nutshell, you are saying is that the Genesis creation account is figurative.
 
Yes, we evolved from apes. No question there.

No, the notion of Adam and Eve being the sole ancestors of all humans cannot be reconciled with science. The Adam and Eve myth is just your basic rationalization of why kids should be punished for the acts of their ancestors.
A little fly in your ointment, science has linked all humans to one “original” woman. Yes, you may call her Eve.
 
Yes, we evolved from apes. No question there.
No. No question there. Apes are related to humans but humans did not evolve from apes.
No, the notion of Adam and Eve being the sole ancestors of all humans cannot be reconciled with science. The Adam and Eve myth is just your basic rationalization of why kids should be punished for the acts of their ancestors.
Wrong again. The Mitochondria proves we all came from the same woman. I fully expect that science will one day confirm we all came from the same man, as well.
 
Incorrect. Adam and Eve as real persons can easily be identified within evolutionary theory as an advancement in the species.
I wouldn’t say “as an advancement in the species”, but as an advanced species.

I personally don’t get into evolution other than accepting natural selection exists. I accept the riddled story in Genesis totally. If man descended from apes though, I’d have to say then that Adam and Eve must have been the first man and woman of the homo-sapiens species.
 
Yes, we evolved from apes. No question there.

No, the notion of Adam and Eve being the sole ancestors of all humans cannot be reconciled with science. The Adam and Eve myth is just your basic rationalization of why kids should be punished for the acts of their ancestors.
And what, exactly, does science have to say about human souls?
 
So, in a nutshell, you are saying is that the Genesis creation account is figurative.
Define figurative.
A human flew to the moon on an “aircraft”.
True statement.
Now we didn’t mention the first human to fly an aircraft, nor the development of flight from that first flight to the landing on the moon (only sixty or so years). That doesn’t make it “figurative”. It just lacks every detail in the middle.
So in the moon example, we didn’t explain those 60 or so years, why ? Too long and far too detailed for most of us to understand anyway!
Imagine now, God describing in every detail His entire creation. Thousands (or millions) of years of history. Who would have the time to read it all? Certainly no human! For every second of creation would require a library in itself.
Figurative, or literal? Literal to me means “true”.
I was conceived in my mothers womb. Is that figurative or literal?
It’s literal in the most common understanding, although not correct, is it? We aren’t “really” conceived in the womb at all. Of course you’d need to scientifically define the “womb”.
LOL, too much time wasted on semantics!
God created us period.
 
Wrong again. The Mitochondria proves we all came from the same woman. I fully expect that science will one day confirm we all came from the same man, as well.
Just to avoid confusion to the guys not well versed in Evolution (like me), here is something to read.

evolution-101.blogspot.com/2006/06/who-was-mitochondrial-eve.html

The idea of an “Eve,” or a most recent common female ancestor, isn’t really that hard to grasp, nor is it dependent on genetics. It’s just common sense. Think about it- family trees tend to get wider and wider as they progress down the generations, so it stands to reason that they will also get narrower and narrower as you go back in time. If you go back enough generations, eventually every single human living today will have the same female name in their family tree. That’s just logical deduction. The same is true of all organisms, not just humans- there’s a bear “Eve,” a sparrow “Eve,” and an aardvark “Eve.”

The trick, then, is to take a look at the mitochondrial DNA from a wide sample of humans, and upon calculating the mutation rate, work backwards until you figure out when the most recent female ancestor would have lived. And to spare you the trouble of going over the calculations, I’ll just give you what’s been discovered- the mitochondrial Eve lived about 150,000 years ago. That’s quite a bit older than most people associate with the name “Eve,” but that isn’t the only difference. **The mitochondrial Eve wasn’t the only human woman alive at the time- if she had been, then it’s likely humans would have gone extinct soon after. In actuality, the mitochondrial Eve was one of many women alive at the time, **and the only thing that makes her distinctive is the fact that there is an unbroken chain of female descendents going from her to each and every one of you listening to this podcast today. Other women living at the same time may have had only sons, which means that their mitochondria wouldn’t have been passed on, even though their genomic DNA would have. Still other women would have had daughters, but their daughters might have had only sons, with the same result to the flow of mitochondrial DNA. For many years, in fact, the honor of mitochondrial Eve would have switched from one woman to the other, as different lineages either died out or produced only males.

So, to review, the concept of the “mitochondrial Eve” refers to the woman in human history whose mitochondria have been inherited by all humans living today. This is due to the fact that mitochondria remain somewhat separate from the rest of the cell, and carry their own DNA separately from the nuclear genome. Comparison of mutations in mitochondrial DNA from modern humans indicates that the mitochondrial Eve lived about 150,000 years ago, although her male genetic counterpart, the Y-chromosome Adam, lived much later.
 
Define figurative.
A human flew to the moon on an “aircraft”.
True statement.
Now we didn’t mention the first human to fly an aircraft, nor the development of flight from that first flight to the landing on the moon (only sixty or so years). That doesn’t make it “figurative”. It just lacks every detail in the middle.
So in the moon example, we didn’t explain those 60 or so years, why ? Too long and far too detailed for most of us to understand anyway!
Imagine now, God describing in every detail His entire creation. Thousands (or millions) of years of history. Who would have the time to read it all? Certainly no human! For every second of creation would require a library in itself.
Figurative, or literal? Literal to me means “true”.
I was conceived in my mothers womb. Is that figurative or literal?
It’s literal in the most common understanding, although not correct, is it? We aren’t “really” conceived in the womb at all. Of course you’d need to scientifically define the “womb”.
LOL, too much time wasted on semantics!
God created us period.
If I was to write the only book with which to lead, educate and retain my followers, I think I would add some more details about things like these…
Not necessarily go 100% into detail, but slightly more clues, keeping it a bit more factual than saying that Adam was formed out of clay…

Just some observations.
 
I’ll just give you what’s been discovered- the mitochondrial Eve lived about 150,000 years ago.
I have no problem with that date. God’s Word certainly doesn’t give a date.
That’s quite a bit older than most people associate with the name “Eve,” but that isn’t the only difference. The mitochondrial Eve wasn’t the only human woman alive at the time- if she had been, then it’s likely humans would have gone extinct soon after.
And your scientific proof here is… What??? The first “human” has a human soul. What date does science say the first human soul was created?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top