S
- Status
G
grannymh
Guest
may support this but the actually evidence doesn’t.
You are right in questioning the actual evidence being presented regarding the origin of humanity and its founders Adam and Eve.
Nonetheless, in my humble opinion, the real questions should be directed to the methods and protocols being used to obtain the evidence. It is here where errors in assumptions or extrapolations can occur which may either limit the validity of results or counter the results.
The main struggle scientists face in research projects regarding human history is in choosing methods, materials, and procedures for testing theories. The current theory is that there had to be a large population of some kind of living organism which eventually produced or developed the human species. Because it is assumed that this kind of development would take millions of years, scientists are now focused on research which would trace certain individual genes back in time millions of years. Using mathematical formulas, estimates are made about the size of the population in which these genes or the source of these genes are seen. If some natural catastrophe had reduced this population, then it would be estimated what size the reduced population would have to be to produce the current population.
So what do researchers use to predict backwards 60 million years in order to find the point of human origin?
A computer program or model is devised for the experimental simulated populations. Example: The Myth of Eve: Molecular Biology and Human Origins, Francisco J. Ayala, 1995. This model consists of a certain number of individuals that reproduce each generation by random re-assortment of genes. Obviously since 1995, there have been a number of adaptations to original models and challenges to the calibration of the molecular clock. Nonetheless, basically the same decisions regarding information (name removed by moderator)ut are being made along with some additional factors added by other areas of science such as anthropology.
When one studies Ayala’s research paper, one finds all kinds of suggestions or assumptions which were chosen for the experimental simulated populations devised as a computer program or model.
For example, decisions had to be made regarding a random mating population
and if the average generation time is 15 years over the span .(Currently, some researchers are looking into the effects of overlapping generations.) Then there are the calculations for neutral genes. Questions arise when some genes are subject to over dominant natural selection. Even the references and notes indicate leeway. Not to be forgotten are the number of times estimates are used. What is also interesting is that the 1995 paper favors one theory of human origin while the current blog of another famous scientist hints that the opposing theory has new possibilities.
Unfortunately, many people overlook the inherent challenges in actual research and instead wave the banner of “science says so”. And when science speaks, the average person is overwhelmed and slinks off intimidated.
There is no doubt that the origin of the human species is a puzzle complicated by the fact that human nature is spirit/matter, rational/corporeal, soul and body. Scientists do recognize that there are still more puzzle pieces waiting to be found. GenBank is an example for future research.
So what is the average lay person to do when she or he is surrounded by all the media hype and is being pressured by those who want Adam and Eve to be symbolic?
We can entertain the thought that parts of the research puzzle is missing or that a piece was squeezed to fit into a tight but not right place. We need to remember that errors in assumptions or extrapolations can occur which may either limit the validity of results or counter the results.
The simple and best answer is to trust God Who created us and Who gave us the Catholic Church to preserve the truth regarding our humanity. We should use common sense in that the truth of human nature will rise to the surface. Then add a prayer that this happens sooner than later.
Blessings,
granny
R
redneck22
Guest
Grannymh you have nothing to fear because real science will always support the Word of God. The true historical account of human origin is found in Genesis and the genetic evidence supports that history.
If we look at the 8 people who were on Noah’s ark and survived the flood, Noah, his wife Mrs Noah, their sons, Shem, Japheth, Ham and their wives, the common ancestor for the Y chromosome was Noah, but the common ancestor for the mitochondria was Eve.
Y-Chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve weren’t contemporaries according to the science literature which suggests they were separated in time by at least 30,000 years, which equates to roughly 1,000 generations.
The present constant mitochondrial clock rate is based on evolutionary assumptions. If there never was a common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees, then these evolutionary comparisons mean nothing.
The genetic closeness of Noah and his sons compared to each of their wives, which we can assume were unrelated, gives the appearance of “time” separation based on evolutionary assumptions.
In any case recent studies show that the molecular clocks can run far faster than evolutionists would like, bringing the time scales down.
“DNA studies of the remains of the last Russian tsar, Nicholas II illustrate troubling questions in forensics and the dating of evolutionary events. The Tsar inherited two different sequences of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from their mother, a condition known as heteroplasmy that was previously considered rare but which new studies show may occur in at least 10% and probably 20% of all humans. This may mean that mtDNA mutates perhaps as much as 20-fold faster than expected, according to two controversial studies. Since evolutionists had assumed that mtDNA mutations occur at a steady rate, these studies cast doubt over the dating of such events as the peopling of Europe. The new results are already prompting changes in DNA forensics procedures.”
From Gibbons, Ann (1998), “Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock,” Science, 279:28-29, January 2. sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/279/5347/28
T
ThomasToo
Guest
How is it that if all the animals in existence were on Noah’s ark and spread out from Mount Ararat all the, for examples, marsupials ended up in Australia without a single ancestor staying anywhere between? The spread of species on Earth is exactly how one would expect it to be if we evolved and exactly not how it would look if everything got off a boat in the Middle East a few thousand years ago.
E
edwest2
Guest
“exactly”? How do you know that? Human beings tend to kill and eat things or get rid of animals they don’t like. There is no one possible explanation.
God bless,
Ed
T
ThomasToo
Guest
There is only one possible realistic explanation given all the data. Here’s a hint, it wasn’t written down in a book of Bronze Age fairy tales.
G
grannymh
Guest
FYI
There are Catholic Doctrines regarding Adam and Eve. So far I have not found a specific doctrine on the animals living around the time of Noah. How many animals living in how many different places are not part of the faith and morals realm. On the other hand, the number of the first real, fully complete human persons who are the two sole parents of the human species is directly related to faith in our Creator and faith in our Savior.
One needs to be careful about confusing the spread of animals on the earth with the origin of the human species. Human persons are not in the same group as brute animals.
Blessings,
granny
The human person is worthy of profound respect.
T
ThomasToo
Guest
You mean like ‘there are so many scientific proofs in favor of evolution’ (Pope Benedict XVI’s Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, 10.31.08)?
Or ‘Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical [Humani Generis], some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a mere hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory’ (Pope John Paul II’s Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, 10.22.1996)?
B
buffalo
Guest
Given new knowledge in 2010 one has to wonder if he would have reworded his statement.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Thomastoo, here are some possible explanations of your conundrum, drawn up on on Young Earth Creationist (YEC) principles:
(1) At the end of the flood Noah navigated to a point in the water just above Australia, anchored a raft there, and left the marsupials on the raft, which gradually sank with the receding flood waters, depositing the animals where they need to be. Noah did the same for the animals of North and South America, Antarctica, Africa, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Greenland and Madagascar (it was a complicated navigational itinerary). The rest of the animals were dispersed by land migration to Europe and Asia.
(2) After the flood, God triggered the Third Law of Accelerated Continental Drift (LACD-3).* The animals migrated from the ark to where they were supposed to be, the continents sped off to where they were supposed to end up, and here we are - QED.
(3) God magically transported all the animals (in suspended animation) through the air to their respective continents.
I hope this helps!
StAnastasia
- I know that law sounds fantastical and made up, but so is everything else in YEC “science.”
E
edwest2
Guest
Totally out of context:
- “Pope John Paul II stated some years ago that “new knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge”(“Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution”1996). In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis ), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. Mainly concerned with evolution as it “involves the question of man,” however, Pope John Paul’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms. The Church’s interest in evolution thus focuses particularly on “the conception of man” who, as created in the image of God, “cannot be subordinated as a pure means or instrument either to the species or to society.” As a person created in the image of God, he is capable of forming relationships of communion with other persons and with the triune God, as well as of exercising sovereignty and stewardship in the created universe. The implication of these remarks is that theories of evolution and of the origin of the universe possess particular theological interest when they touch on the doctrines of the creation ex nihilo and the creation of man in the image of God.”
God bless,
Ed
T
ThomasToo
Guest
Frankly, and I hope no one is offended by this, I’m astonished that people can (a) convince themselves to believe these things and (b) think it’s necessary to believe all that (^) rubbish to believe in God. I think my IQ has fallen from reading and trying to wrap my head around your explanations especially points 1 and 2.
It does help. Thanks.
T
ThomasToo
Guest
Right, so the Church’s position is that evolution can’t account for the existence of the human soul and what we’d call ‘human nature’ but that doesn’t mean we ought to reject it for what someone else has called ‘brute animals.’
E
edwest2
Guest
I’m offended that some here have decided to put the word of man above the word of God, or to decide what they can accept as OK and what they can reject. This isn’t legitimate Biblical scholarship at all. That’s why I think there’s a book out there titled: The God Who Did Nothing – Using Scientific Claims To Disprove The Work Of God.
Science does not trump Scripture. In the case of man, it certainly cannot.
God bless,
Ed
Science does not trump Scripture. In the case of man, it certainly cannot.
God bless,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
Honest question: So what if some people reject evolution? What will happen?
Second, I invite you to read this:
"Evolution has not been “scientifically” proven and science has unnecessarily narrowed humanity’s view of creation, Pope Benedict has said in his first reflections on the origins of life.
"In comments to students, published yesterday in German, the Pope – who took office in April 2005 – stopped short of endorsing intelligent design and said “faith alone” could not “explain the whole picture”.
"But, he said: “We cannot haul 10,000 generations into the laboratory.”
According to Pope Benedict, the Church does not share the certainty mentioned here.
God bless,
Ed
T
ThomasToo
Guest
And I’m offended that people thing that the Bible–written between 1600 and 2500 years before the advent of science of an epistemological tool–can be used to answer legitimate scientific question. If the Bible were to be taken absolutely literally the earth would be square and flat and pi would exactly equal 3.
Luckily, neither of us have the right to not be offended.
Incidentally, a quick Google search shows that no such book exists although much of Richard Dawkins’s (and Sam Harris’s, Christopher Hitchens’s and Daniel Dennett’s) work does much the same. A better title for your hypothetical book would be The God Who Wasn’t There: Explaining Away Prescientific Mythology With Proper Understanding of Science, but that’s me.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
I seem to recall a YEC governor of Alabama trying to get a law passed rendering pi = 3. He thought it blasphemous that the Holy Trinity should be equated with 3.14159. (I’ll try to track down the reference for you.)
S
StAnastasia
Guest
They won’t become leading scientists. But that’s OK, I have no problem with people being YECs, or geocentrists, or flat-earthers, or alchemists. We just shouldn’t spend precious school classroom time teaching pseudo-science. Leave that to the home-school movement.
E
edwest2
Guest
As a Catholic, I know this: The Deposit of Faith is inviolate. Man’s understanding is not above God’s knowledge. That’s all I’m saying.
God bless,
Ed
R
ricmat
Guest
It was an April fool joke, first posted on the talkorigins newsgroup.
nmsr.org/alabama.htm
Nice try. But no cigar.
- Status