Many Adams and Eves?

[grannymh]

If the source for the original statement actually says that, it is quite a leap of logic. Showing common ancestry to a group a ~1000 in no way precludes common ancestry to a single couple. I smell somewhere the subtle faith-debunking false dichotomizing which gives legitimate scientific inquiry on the topic a bad name.

From reading 1994-95 papers of Francisco J. Ayala, it is easy to see that whatever group amount is needed to prove a genetic connection does not automatically exclude the possibility of a single couple as parents of a new, distinct species. This is due to methods used to provide assumed data for the experimental simulated populations. In other words, it is impossible to predict backwards millions of years as to what every single individual was doing as either a part of the Multiregional Theory or Out of Africa theory. (Note: Multiregional Theory may be making a come back due to new possibilities.)

Regarding the mutations of genes, the same kind of problems exist due to the amount of genomic data being studied and the functions of the involved genes. All this is in the light of adaptations made to the original Wright-Fisher model and the challenges to the molecular clock. In other words, the coalescence theory may work with only certain ancient genes provided that all alleles present in an extant pool would have descended from a single allele which in turn needed a large hominid population in order to exist. The assumptions of a mean population size and a long-term generation time of 15 years, would not preclude other assumptions especially when it comes to evaluating effects of possible bottlenecks and/or founder theories over several million years.

As one of the early research papers states: “We have explored how small the population bottlenecks would be by computer simulations.” Later it states: “The conclusion follows that human ancestral populations could never have been smaller than two or three thousand individuals at any time over the last several million years.” Several million years sounds impressive until one realizes that there is no substantial evidence that these ancestors were true, fully complete human persons with the same human nature as you and me which we inheritied from… There is a difference between a highly developed sentient non-human animal and a rational human with intellect and will.

Blessings,
granny

Human nature is sacred because it is an unique unification of spirit/matter, rational/corporeal, soul and body.

 

[grannymh]

I think her point, and please correct me if I am wrong, is that a Catholic trying to act as a Catholic can’t deny that fact, just as a Catholic can’t deny that Jesus is the Son of God.

You are correct. Thank you.

 

[buffalo]

What makes an empirical science? Observation, measurement and prediction I think were the criteria you set up before but I want to be clear.

correct

 

[NHInsider]

I will try to be more specific. Catholics are not free to deny that Adam and Eve are the two sole first parents of the human species.

Where does that leave paragraph 70 of Communion and Stewardship?

Spring is God’s message of faith in the future.

Amen!

 

[ThomasToo]

correct

Haven’t we covered this ground already? I gave evidence evolution fulfills that definition and you said something to the effect of ‘oh, but not like that’?

 

[grannymh]

Where does that leave paragraph 70 of Communion and Stewardship?

"70. With respect to the immediate creation of the human soul, Catholic theology affirms that particular actions of God bring about effects that transcend the capacity of created causes acting according to their natures. The appeal to divine causality to account for genuinely causal as distinct from merely explanatory gaps does not insert divine agency to fill in the “gaps” in human scientific understanding (thus giving rise to the so-called “God of the gaps”). The structures of the world can be seen as open to non-disruptive divine action in directly causing events in the world. Catholic theology affirms that that the emergence of the first members of the human species (whether as individuals or in populations) represents an event that is not susceptible of a purely natural explanation and which can appropriately be attributed to divine intervention. Acting indirectly through causal chains operating from the beginning of cosmic history, God prepared the way for what Pope John Paul II has called “an ontological leap…the moment of transition to the spiritual.” While science can study these causal chains, it falls to theology to locate this account of the special creation of the human soul within the overarching plan of the triune God to share the communion of trinitarian life with human persons who are created out of nothing in the image and likeness of God, and who, in his name and according to his plan, exercise a creative stewardship and sovereignty over the physical universe.”

The above confirms Adam and Eve as the two first parents of the human species with the references to the spiritual soul. Clearly science alone cannot account for the fully complete human nature.

Section 70 points out that “While science can study these causal chains, it falls to theology to locate this account of the special creation of the human soul within the overarching plan of the triune God to share the communion of Trinitarian life with human persons who are created out of nothing in the image and likeness of God, and who, in his name and according to his plan, exercise a creative stewardship and sovereignty over the physical universe.” This “theology” is from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraphs 355 -361 and additional paragraphs.

Anyone can offer opinions about science including the Subcommission of the International Theological Commission. Sections 62 & 63 were written as an observation type report – “According to the widely accepted scientific account…”

Just because the present text was approved in forma specifica, by the written ballots of the International Theological Commission and then submitted to Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the President of the Commission, who gave his permission for its publication – does not mean that the science part is a formal teaching from the Catholic Deposit of Faith.

Those who quote from this paper need to realize that any conclusions regarding the strictly scientific realm can only be considered as respected opinions of highly intelligent talented people.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for knowledge is worthy of the difficulties of the journey.

 

[ThomasToo]

The above confirms Adam and Eve as the two first parents of the human species with the references to the spiritual soul. Clearly science alone cannot account for the fully complete human nature.

Section 70 points out that “While science can study these causal chains, it falls to theology to locate this account of the special creation of the human soul within the overarching plan of the triune God to share the communion of Trinitarian life with human persons who are created out of nothing in the image and likeness of God, and who, in his name and according to his plan, exercise a creative stewardship and sovereignty over the physical universe.” This “theology” is from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraphs 355 -361 and additional paragraphs.

Anyone can offer opinions about science including the Subcommission of the International Theological Commission. Sections 62 & 63 were written as an observation type report – “According to the widely accepted scientific account…”

Just because the present text was approved in forma specifica, by the written ballots of the International Theological Commission and then submitted to Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the President of the Commission, who gave his permission for its publication – does not mean that the science part is a formal teaching from the Catholic Deposit of Faith.

Those who quote from this paper need to realize that any conclusions regarding the strictly scientific realm can only be considered as respected opinions of highly intelligent talented people.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for knowledge is worthy of the difficulties of the journey.

Can I clarify something about your worldview? Do you think Genesis 1 (and 2 - 4) are the literal truth of how things happened or do you believe in Adam and Eve as the two first humans into whom God breathed a soul after developing through hundreds of millions of years of evolution? Or something else entirely?

 

[grannymh]

Can I clarify something about your worldview?

At the moment I’m trying to figure out my worldview. If it helps you to understand – I have been known to walk on both sides of the street up the middle at the same time.

Do you think Genesis 1 (and 2 - 4) are the literal truth of how things happened
or do you believe in Adam and Eve as the two first humans into whom God breathed a soul after developing through hundreds of millions of years of evolution? Or something else entirely?

The territory of Genesis chapters 1-4 is so complex in its simplicity of truth, that I find myself changing my approaches from literal to symbolic/figurative to a combination and back again. The reality of Adam and Eve is my main concern.

While I am very interested in the theory of evolution and do consider it viable in regard to non-human living organisms, I find that it lacks ability to deal with human nature. Thus, sometimes I think that the human species is a separate lineage and sometimes I think that it is the only extant hominid. Which it is happens to belong to the scientific realm so there is no Catholic doctrine involved. On the other hand, the soul is part of the Catholic realm of faith and morals and so there are lots of Catholic doctrines involved. When Catholic doctrines are involved, then I can be definite about what I believe. As for the rest…I am learning more and more from both realms, science as well as faith.

Most likely I should answer your question with “something else entirely” since I am the queen of cherry pickers.

Blessings,
granny

Spring is God’s message of faith in the future.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Evolution is DEFINED as "random mutations + natural selection.

Definition of evolution:

“In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution … is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions.”

• Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

Definition of ev·o·lu·tion:

1. biology: theory of development from earlier forms: the theoretical process by which all species develop from earlier forms of life. According to this theory, natural variation in the genetic material of a population favors reproduction by some individuals more than others, so that over the generations all members of the population come to possess the favorable traits.
2. biology: developmental process: the natural or artificially induced process by which new and different organisms develop as a result of changes in genetic material;
3. gradual development: the gradual development of something into a more complex or better form;
   “the evolution of democracy in Western Europe”
4. pattern caused by movement: a pattern formed by a series of movements;
5. physics: giving off heat or gas: the emission of heat, gas, or vapor;
6. mathematics: finding root of number: an algebraic operation in which the root, e.g. the square root or cube root, of a number is found.
   See also involution (sense 6)
7. military military exercise: a military exercise or maneuver carried out according to a plan.

Synonyms: development, fruition, growth, progress, progression, advancement.

bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+evolution&FORM=DTPDIA

 

[diggerdomer]

Yes Adam and Eve died. What is your point?

My point is that you responded to a post I made that said Adam and Eve died with a long list of rather obtuse statements. I just wanted to clarify whether you agreed with my post, that you were responding to, regarding the fact that Adam and Eve died. Apparently, you agree.

 

[diggerdomer]

Your example is still observable, testable and predictable. All you have done was change parameters.

Right. Just to point out that while something may be observable, testable, and predictable does not mean it’s the only explanation, or the only true explanation.

 

[diggerdomer]

There are “Catholic Theologians” here who state that evolution (“random mutations + natural selection results in all life that we see today”) is a FACT. That’s the problem

I agree, personally, on one hand. On the other hand, theologians are free to opine and speculate as to what they consider “fact.” That’s part of their job as theologians. The more important point is that the Magisterium does not teach evolutionary theories as fact, nor does it deny that some evolutionary theories may be completely compatible with faith.

 

[diggerdomer]

There have been a multitude of threads/posts trying to explain dogma and doctrine etc. I will try to be more specific. Catholics are not free to deny that Adam and Eve are the two sole first parents of the human species.

I do have answers to your next post 380, but will have to present them later.

Blessings,
granny

Spring is God’s message of faith in the future.

Catholics are free to interpret Adam and Eve as either two historical individuals or as symbolic representations pointing to the truth that God created humans. Or both.

 

[Benadam]

Catholics are free to interpret Adam and Eve as either two historical individuals or as symbolic representations pointing to the truth that God created humans. Or both.

Do you mean that Catholics are free to dissent ?

 

[NHInsider]

The above confirms Adam and Eve as the two first parents of the human species with the references to the spiritual soul. Clearly science alone cannot account for the fully complete human nature.

And I would never suggest that science can “account for the fully complete human nature.” In fact, the most important essence that makes us human, the image of God, is exclusively the role of faith, not science. but this sentence

Catholic theology affirms that that the emergence of the first members of the human species (whether as individuals or in populations) represents an event that is not susceptible of a purely natural explanation and which can appropriately be attributed to divine intervention.

explicitly addresses the possibility of a “population” rather than a couple and uses the word “emergence” which supports the idea of humanity arising from an earlier humanoid form.

Anyone can offer opinions about science including the Subcommission of the International Theological Commission. Sections 62 & 63 were written as an observation type report – “According to the widely accepted scientific account…”

Just because the present text was approved in forma specifica, by the written ballots of the International Theological Commission and then submitted to Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the President of the Commission, who gave his permission for its publication – does not mean that the science part is a formal teaching from the Catholic Deposit of Faith.

Those who quote from this paper need to realize that any conclusions regarding the strictly scientific realm can only be considered as respected opinions of highly intelligent talented people.

I agree and would not suggest that it is a statement of faith (I would suggest that the Church isn’t in the business of making *de fide *statements about scientific theories except to caution against those that deny the action of God).

At the same time, if it were a requirement of the faith that we accept a 6-day creation and the specific creation of Adam from the dust of the earth and Eve from his side, I do not believe the ITC would have included this broad language.

Let me try once again to state my position. Catholics are clearly not required to believe in evolution. Neither are we required to believe in ID or YEC or any other scientific or quasi-scientific theory. We are permitted to believe any of those things, so long as we assent to the ultimate and intimate involvement of God.

 

[grannymh]

Catholics are free to interpret Adam and Eve as either two historical individuals or as symbolic representations pointing to the truth that God created humans. Or both.

I agreed with post 470 and 471. Here I am having a bit of trouble.

If Adam and Eve are only symbolic representations pointing to the truth that God created humans, so what?

From the truth you are mentioning, humans that are created are no different from fish, birds, wild animals and all kinds of creeping things of the earth that are created. Is that what Catholics really believe?

 

[grannymh]

And I would never suggest that science can “account for the fully complete human nature.” In fact, the most important essence that makes us human, the image of God, is exclusively the role of faith, not science. but this sentence explicitly addresses the possibility of a “population” rather than a couple and uses the word “emergence” which supports the idea of humanity arising from an earlier humanoid form.

Please look at the whole context. When I look at the whole context, I find something entirely different regarding the individual word “possibility” as relating to “population”.

 

[buffalo]

I agree, personally, on one hand. On the other hand, theologians are free to opine and speculate as to what they consider “fact.” That’s part of their job as theologians. The more important point is that the Magisterium does not teach evolutionary theories as fact, nor does it deny that some evolutionary theories may be completely compatible with faith.

Adaptation ie. micro-evolution does not conflict with Catholicism.

 

[buffalo]

I agree, personally, on one hand. On the other hand, theologians are free to opine and speculate as to what they consider “fact.” That’s part of their job as theologians. The more important point is that the Magisterium does not teach evolutionary theories as fact, nor does it deny that some evolutionary theories may be completely compatible with faith.

Teaching authority stops at the Bishops. Theologians can muse all they want but have no teaching authority.

 

[buffalo]

Catholics are free to interpret Adam and Eve as either two historical individuals or as symbolic representations pointing to the truth that God created humans. Or both.

Both is the correct answer.