G
grannymh
Guest
In that case, how would you answer the question in post 475?
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
Adam and Eve were real parents. Every human is a descendant.
As in all Scripture there are layers, like an onion. This does not denigrate the literal in any way.
115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two *senses *of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.
[116](javascript
penWindow(‘cr/116.htm’)
The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83[117](javascript
penWindow(‘cr/117.htm’) The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.- The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
- The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
- The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87 [119](javascript
penWindow(‘cr/119.htm’) "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgment. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.89
T
ThomasToo
Guest
I don’t think even Richard Dawkins would disagree that somewhere in our evolutionary past we all have one set of parents (though one parent is probably an easier claim to defend). I think the real question is were Adam and Even created out of mud or did God breathe souls, reason, passion, emotion &c into a couple of naturally evolves apes?
Like an ogre? =P
‘The meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation’? Couldn’t–and I am not trying to make any disrespectful parallels–a literal interpretation of Grimm’s fairy tales hold true given that ‘sound interpretation’ shows such a story with talking animals (the fairy tale not Genesis though I always forget about that bit) cannot be historically true?[116](javascript
B
buffalo
Guest
The latest genomic research is showing humans and chimps being around 70% similar. The 98% claim is not holding up. It is unlikely from this research we descended from apes.
If Scripture fell out of the sky yesterday interpreting it would be a difficult task indeed. How would one go about it?
Since it did not we have to look to how it has been continuously interpreted from the day it was written. This interpretation has been preserved by the Magisterium of the Church. The danger is “private interpretation”, which is all over the place. We have a good number of Catholics right here on this forum practicing private interpretation.
We have some acting as though it did fall from the sky yesterday ignoring tradition and taking wild stabs at it and trying to make it conform to the reasoning of modern men.
Always look to the Church.
E
edwest2
Guest
“some evolutionary theories may be completely compatible with faith”? I know of none. Can you be more specific?
God bless,
Ed
G
grannymh
Guest
Your answers from the Catechism describe the ways Scripture can be read. Your answer in post 479 implied that symbolic representations were o.k. But…
If Adam and Eve are symbolic representations pointing to the truth that God created humans, how did symbolic representations change to real parents? And would their descendents be also symbolic of some truth? How does one know if symbolic representations can procreate? Flags don’t.
In my humble opinion, there cannot be substantial truth regarding our present human nature if Adam and Eve are considered symbolic representations pointing to truths which can apply to all living organisms.
Blessings,
granny
The unique human species is the pinnacle of creation.
E
edwest2
Guest
The physical reality of two parents for all human beings cannot be ignored. A symbol is a marking or object that represents something real and identifiable, however a symbol is not the object itself. Therefore, strictly speaking, a symbol represents a thing, but is not the thing itself. We all know what a word is but it only symbolizes the object. The word cat is not a cat. A drawing or pictogram of a cat is not a cat.
God bless,
Ed
God bless,
Ed
T
ThomasToo
Guest
I’d be interested in a citation for this claim. The studies I’ve read seems to say that 98% of all our DNA is shared and about 70% of the DNA that actually codes for things (excluding so-called junk DNA).
I hope I do not offend with this statement but I would prefer a citation for your claim that’s not from the Discovery Institute or other organization of the kind. Nature, a standard molecular biology journal or something like that would be (greatly) preferred.
B
buffalo
Guest
Any symbolism in the Adam and Eve narrative is dependent on the fact that they were real people, a layer on top of the fact.
For example - the tree of life - it may or may not have been an actual tree, but represented something tangible that manifested immortality for Adam and Eve. (Adam and Ever are not symbolic, though there is some symbolism in the account)
But it could have been an actual tree -
World’s Most Useful Tree’ Provides New Low-Cost Water Purification Method for Developing World
In any event, whatever it actually was, the point is Adam and Eve were given an instruction and disobeyed.
G
grannymh
Guest
My apology but I had to edit post 485 due to a mistake in the first sentence.
Most of us understand Adam and Eve as real people so it is easy to get from them to our own human nature by following the truths regarding Adam and Eve.
However, in my humble opinion, one cannot get to the truths of our own human nature and thus answer basic questions regarding the purpose of life by stating general all-purpose truths gained from symbolism of Adam and Eve.
B
buffalo
Guest
Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content
Divergence between samples of chimpanzee and human DNA sequences is 5%, counting indels
Fine-scale recombination patterns differ between chimpanzees and humans
There are a bunch more of them if you need. (note some of these %'s are cumulative). Currently when added up it comes out to about 70% similarity.
B
buffalo
Guest
Agreed.
T
ThomasToo
Guest
From the middle article, the only one you didn’t bold, ‘for this sample, a better estimate would be that 95% of the base pairs are exactly shared between chimpanzee and human DNA.’ I need to go through and read more than the abstracts of these but I want to clarify you last claim. You don’t just multiply (or subtract) these percentages through…
B
buffalo
Guest
It depends - if 20% dissimilarity is in the “junk” DNA area and we find 5% in another without dependency that would add to 25%. Right?
B
buffalo
Guest
The bolding was not mine.
B
buffalo
Guest
From the paper:
"Indeed, at 6 million years of separation, the difference in MSY gene content in chimpanzee and human is more comparable to the difference in autosomal gene content in chicken and human, at 310 million years of separation."1
"Indeed, at 6 million years of separation, the difference in MSY gene content in chimpanzee and human is more comparable to the difference in autosomal gene content in chicken and human, at 310 million years of separation."1
B
buffalo
Guest
99%? 95%? 87%? 70%? How Similar is the Human Genome to the Chimpanzee Genome?
…So…if those 2.4 billion base pairs lined up perfectly, the chimp and human genome would be about 75% similar. However, given that 3% of those base pairs don’t line up perfectly, human and chimp DNA are about 72% similar. Several geneticists have obviously looked at these data, and there are those who think the number will eventually drop below 72% once all the data are in. In fact, Dr. Richard Buggs (geneticist at the University of Florida) says
I predict that when we have a reliable, complete chimpanzee genome, the overall similarity of the human genome will prove to be close to 70% (and very far from 99%)
70% Chimp?
…So…if those 2.4 billion base pairs lined up perfectly, the chimp and human genome would be about 75% similar. However, given that 3% of those base pairs don’t line up perfectly, human and chimp DNA are about 72% similar. Several geneticists have obviously looked at these data, and there are those who think the number will eventually drop below 72% once all the data are in. In fact, Dr. Richard Buggs (geneticist at the University of Florida) says
I predict that when we have a reliable, complete chimpanzee genome, the overall similarity of the human genome will prove to be close to 70% (and very far from 99%)
70% Chimp?
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
In your post #490 you presented three links. They are in blue and underlined. The first and third links are bolded. The second link (the middle one) is not bolded.
It’s your post, isn’t it? If you didn’t bold the first and third links, who did? And how? And why?
R
ricmat
Guest
Hello - I’ve been gone all morning, and this was the first post I read when I turned on the computer.
What difference does it make if a link is bolded or not?
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
Maybe I can help here. There are different theories of evolution. Some take mutagens into account; some don’t. One theory of evolution relies on natural selection only.
Take a geographical area which is pretty much separate from other geographical areas. There is a species of tortoise that lives on this geographical area. The tortoises mate and reproduce. Their offspring contain DNA from both parents, but of course the DNA of one newly born tortoise does not exactly match the DNA of its siblings (although they are close). Some new tortoises, for whatever reason, manage to procreate at a greater rate than some of the other offspring, producing a larger number of their offspring. This could be due to chance (more females available) or it could be due to something else and that something else may be its genetics.
Go on from generation to generation to generation to generation. If the ability to produce greater numbers of viable offspring is because of a genetic factor, that genetic factor will be present in larger and larger percentages of this species of tortoise.
The genetic information may code for something very small that, for whatever reason, allows a tortoise who contains that genetic information to reproduce and form viable offspring at a greater rate than tortoises who do not have that genetic information.
Over a great period of time, the gene pool changes. More and more tortoises have this genetic information. It may reach the point where the tortoises who do not have this genetic information die out because of their smaller and smaller numbers.
That is a theory of evolution.
Here is another example:
If you travel among the missions in California you will notice that you need to duck to enter the sleeping quarters for the priests and other people who lived at the mission.
People were shorter back then. People are taller now and require higher doorways.
That is evolution. It’s as simple as that.
- Status