If by select number you mean “not a lot” then you are wrong. There are tons and tons of fossils, plus genetic studies and other related fields have confirmed what the fossils show. Of course not every detail is known, nor are the details known set in stone (bc that’s the way science is).
humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species
Select refers to the research published in the top peer reviewed journals. And actually there have not been a lot of human origin studies until recently when the Human Genome Project was completed. One famous genetic study in 1995 has been used as the base for denying Adam and Eve and is still used even though some current studies in the same genetic area have come up with a better presentation. Even with a better presentation, the evidence does not warrant an universal exclusion of the possibility of Adam and Eve.
Remember that scientific research includes both probability and possibility.
When it is said that related fields have confirmed what the fossils show, then it is necessary to have accurate information as to what the fossils show.
Yes, there are tons and tons of fossils and the current research is based on organizing them into species which have already been determined. However, there are still fossil finds which don’t quite match other species; thus there are tons and tons of speculations and arguments going on between scientists. Tons and tons of speculations are an exaggeration; but the point is that new information about old fossils keeps popping up.
There is a lot to learn from fossils; but information about geographic location, diet, facial characteristics, disease, locomotion, brain size etc., do not necessarily include a conclusion regarding the possibility of two sole founders of the human species.
What do you think fossils show? And how can fossils exclude the possibility of two founders of the human species?
I took a brief look at your link and could relate to the illustration "The Human Family Tree. Recently, I had a chance to visit the human evolution display at the London Natural History Museum. A lot of it is being remolded, but what I saw demonstrated the relationships between members of those groups in The Human Family Tree and modern humans. For example, a recent Australopithecus fossil may be moved closer to modern humans because its structure indicated that this particular fellow walked on two legs. In the language of evolution, any being which walks on two legs may be considered as human.
What has happened is that the evolution model does not distinguish between human and human-like so just about everything that looks human-like is called human depending on the homology shared with modern humans. What was fascinating at the Natural History Museum were the charts and diagrams of shared characteristics, i.e, a homology which may be attributed to a common origin. The emphasis is on the relationship between fossil/species and other fossil/species. By plotting out the relationships, a reasonable common ancestor can be determined.
My point is that while there are lots of fascinating research papers on the information in the link to The Human Family Tree, this information does not necessarily and particularly exclude two founders of the real human species.
Somewhere along the line, someone will point to the population studies and say humans evolved as a variety of breeding populations and did not evolve from two individuals. At least fossils are concrete evidence; whereas there are no census records for these archaic populations. Now if a significant amount of fossils are found at an individual location, one could estimate the population size; but that does not mean that every individual in that population can be examined or if all the individuals are passionate breeders.
The point is that the simulated populations used for population studies can go only so far because they deal with millions of years going backwards. They can legitimately question the probability of Adam and Eve, but they cannot exclude the possibility of Adam and Eve.
The possibility of Adam and Eve is what is needed for the doctrine of monogenism to remain in place. Given the uniqueness of the human species, there is also the probability of two founders separate from other species.
Granny, I know humans are a special interest of yours. But when it comes to the physical, material aspect of the human species, we are no different than animals.
The better scientific explanation is that our anatomies are more similar to or more related to certain animals. We are vertebrates, but we are far removed from jawless fishes. Our anatomy is closely related to chimps and some scientists have included gorillas in the same level as chimps. But chimps are not equal with us.
Neither is the Australopithecus who walked on two legs equal to us.
From a Catholic position, the scientific aspects of our “animal type” anatomy should be explored as far as natural science can go. But when it comes to understanding our fully-complete human nature, we have to factor in our spiritual soul.
Our human nature is so unique, that I believe that non-theists could come to the same conclusion that we are peerless. Because of who we are, we would have had to descend from a single or pure ancestral human couple. By pure, I mean that that we did not descend from a variety of random mating ancestors which once served as our common ancestor for non-human primates.
