Yes, I agree with that. And I am inclined to believe that true adherents of the evolution theory are obliged to recognize a dead end when tracing and fully understanding the single species that was primary ancestor of organisms, especially the human organism, unless they would left up their mind and heart to a Creator up above all things.
Dear DavWan,
There’s no “teaching” at all, in the sense I think you’re considering. No received wisdom, no revelation. We are picking around in the ancient evidence, and every now and then, someone pulls up something important, and everyone looks at it, and there’s some discussion, and maybe an argument or two, until all aspects are worked out, and then the darkness gives just a little, and we know a little bit more than before. That’s how it is. There’s always latitude for disagreement on the edges, but over time, as more evidence accumulates, one or another of the possibilities becomes sufficiently obvious.
In the sense, that we are the most plastic of all organisms from a behavior standpoint. Cultural evolution has become more important than our physical evolution, and this probably became the case before our particular species appeared. It was, after all a hallmark of the Neandertals as well. And since the discovery that H. ergaster (an very primitive form of H. erectus) had feet essentially like ours, the odds that they were moving long distances and becoming adapted to weapons and innovation are pretty good. (the discovery of their footprints confirms an earlier prediction that their postcranial skeletons were pretty much like ours)
Yes.
That is beyond the reach of science. As the Cardinal writes, that would be going beyond that which science can support. You can have a theology of evolution which considers the soul, but you cannot have a scientific theory that does it.
A literalistic reading of Genesis is not required or even encouraged by the Church, although you can accept it if you like.
Sure. The evolution of the primrose O. lamarkania to O. gigas was the first documented one. (polyploidy event, so it was both sudden and discontinuous)
Hmmm… I think if you could find a copy of “Process and Pattern in Evolution” by Charlotte Avers, you’d see a very nice summation of the data. I like hers, because she includes the work of Fitch and Marguilis, which documents several kingdoms and details many species.
I keep having doubts about a single anything being the primary ancestor of life. Didn’t Richard Dawkins say, at the end of Ben Stein’s documentary, that life could have been seeded by aliens? I still doubt my hearing; yet, I heard that comment outside of the movie. It’s o.k. to laugh at me. When I heard Dawkins’ comment, I pictured God sprinkling the earth with His seeds of grace.
Yes, that would be true if science should be restricted to empiricism alone.But if we accept that “science is systematic knowledge…”, then science would also include even philosophy and theology.
What is the context for Cardinal Ratzinger’s quote because I am interpreting it far differently?
Now, I’m having fun. I’m like Thomas the Apostle in that I have to see something with my own eyes. Thanks Barbarian for link et al. Next, I have to find out what all those numbers mean.
It is understandable that you would have doubts about it. But in the final analysis God alone is the “primary ancestor of life”.
That presentation would appear that man came first before the cows came to be. That would be contrary to Genesis.
I do like your phrase “primary ancestor of life”. But I would prefer to say that He is the primary giver of life. While He is the primary Creator, I keep thinking that maybe He created a more complicated source of life than we are seeing at the moment.
You are free to believe in Creationism if you choose. However, do realize that not all Patristics and Medieval Theologians held it to be literal.
No. You are trying to read it as a timeline. It is a family tree, showing degrees of relatedness. Time is not shown by the position on the tree.
I don’t see Cows on the tree at all, nor on the site. If I understand the tree properly, the numbers don’t have anything to do with date but with nucleotide substitution.
Oh I see. Therefore, evolutionists do not know which came first, man or horse, right?
Ok, if you did not see a cow there, just replace it with horse. Maybe I mistook the horse to be cow.
That does not follow. The tree is designed to show how close the species are in terms of nucleotides. It is not concerned with when the species appeared.