Many Adams and Eves?

[buffalo]

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?

Geez! - that is the way they came from the cut and paste. Try it yourself…

 

[buffalo]

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 offspring does not exactly match the DNA of another offspring (although they are close). One offspring, for whatever reason, manages to procreate at a greater rate than the other offspring, producing a larger number of its 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. I would think it strange that doorways would be built so that these people would have to duck to get into their rooms.

People were shorter back then. People are taller now and require higher doorways.

That is evolution. It’s as simple as that.

Adaptation driven by rapid response DNA is emerging as the reason for variation.

 

[ThomasToo]

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?

The context was important. The unbolded article said something almost antithetical to his main point.

 

[ricmat]

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

Sorry I was trying to be brief.

I should have said (and did, in other posts) that the mechanism / process by which biological evolution is defined to occur is “random mutations + natural selection.”

This is the point of controversy. “Change over time”, or military plans are not what people are arguing about.

 

[ricmat]

The context was important. The unbolded article said something almost antithetical to his main point.

If that’s true (and I haven’t read the links), then it would still be true if the others were unbolded, and the one you mention had been bolded.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Sorry I was trying to be brief.

I should have said (and did, in other posts) that the mechanism / process by which biological evolution is defined to occur is “random mutations + natural selection.”

This is the point of controversy. “Change over time”, or military plans are not what people are arguing about.

I have presented one theory of evolution. There are numerous theories of evolution. A poster asked if there was a theory that did not conflict with Church teaching and I presented exactly what he requested.

If you disagree with Dr. Futuyma as to the definition of evolution, perhaps you should contact him.

 

[ricmat]

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.

Certainly theologians are free to opine on items outside of magisterial teaching.

With regard to magisterial teaching, I thought they needed to conform. It IS magisterial teaching that some theories of evolution are unacceptable. Just saying “evolution” with no disclaimers includes the unacceptable ones.

As an aside - I’ve been curious about this for a long time. What does it actually say in a “job description” for “Theologian?” If someone has a real world example, I’d love for you to post it here

 

[LittleSoldier]

Geez! - that is the way they came from the cut and paste. Try it yourself…

They showed up that way when you cut and pasted them? That’s really weird, isn’t it? Huh. It also wasn’t really obvious because they were in blue.

I believe you. It’s just weird. Go figure…

 

[LittleSoldier]

If that’s true (and I haven’t read the links), then it would still be true if the others were unbolded, and the one you mention had been bolded.

It’s just a weird computer glitch. I couldn’t understand how it could happen without the poster doing the bolding but that is what happened.

Yes, it would still be true.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Adaptation driven by rapid response DNA is emerging as the reason for variation.

The poster requested a theory of evolution that did not conflict with Church teaching. I provided what he asked for.

IMO, there are numerous factors that influence evolution and I honestly doubt that one theory can provide all the answers. And even if it could, it would still be just a theory.

 

[ricmat]

I have presented one theory of evolution. There are numerous theories of evolution. A poster asked if there was a theory that did not conflict with Church teaching and I presented exactly what he requested.

If you disagree with Dr. Futuyma as to the definition of evolution, perhaps you should contact him.

Dr. Futuyama’s definition was basically “change over time.” That’s not what people are arguing about.

The example you presented did not involve a transition to a new species.

The mechanism is the issue of contention (there, I’ve said it again).

 

[ThomasToo]

Dr. Futuyama’s definition was basically “change over time.” That’s not what people are arguing about.

The example you presented did not involve a transition to a new species.

The mechanism is the issue of contention (there, I’ve said it again).

I think the main problem here is that species is a very slippery concept and is not nearly as easy to pin down as people would like to think especially over evolutionary time. An easy example with a separation over space and not time is a ring species.

 

[NHInsider]

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”.

Completely stumped. I’ve been reading Church documents for about 30 years, and I cannot for the life of me come up with a way that the parenthetical “whether as individuals or in populations” means anything other than “whichever of these possibilities is true, the predicate of this sentence is valid.” So perhaps you can explain what you think it means?

Here’s the whole paragraph:

1. 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.

 

[NHInsider]

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.

Don’t overlook the immediately preceding paragraphs.

109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.

110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. “For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression.”

 

[NHInsider]

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.

Just to clarify, no reasonable scientist would say that we descended from apes. Evolutionary biology suggests that humans and apes descended from a common ancestor. Not the same thing.

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.

But the point of the whole discussion is that some people are claiming the Magesterium says one thing and others are claiming that it does not, or that it says something very different.

 

[buffalo]

Just to clarify, no reasonable scientist would say that we descended from apes. Evolutionary biology suggests that humans and apes descended from a common ancestor. Not the same thing.

.

Right - that is what I should have posted.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Dr. Futuyama’s definition was basically “change over time.” That’s not what people are arguing about.

The example you presented did not involve a transition to a new species.

The mechanism is the issue of contention (there, I’ve said it again).

Perhaps you don’t understand. The poster asked the following question:

“some evolutionary theories may be completely compatible with faith”? I know of none. Can you be more specific?

Is what I presented a theory of evolution? Yes, it is. Is it compatible with faith? Yes, it is.

 

[edwest2]

Just to clarify, no reasonable scientist would say that we descended from apes. Evolutionary biology suggests that humans and apes descended from a common ancestor. Not the same thing.

But the point of the whole discussion is that some people are claiming the Magesterium says one thing and others are claiming that it does not, or that it says something very different.

The bottom line is that the Church teaches Adam and Eve were two individuals.

What scientists are saying is that humans and apes had a common ancestor. At some point, from that common ancestor, humans and apes diverged as offspring. Interesting idea but evolution does not support the idea of divine intervention.

Pope Benedict recently stated that our ancestral lineage cannot be verified.

I think the point of the whole discussion is to attempt to superimpose some scientific conclusions on events that require divine intervention. Connected to that are recent attempts to somehow reconcile Biology Textbook evolution with Christian theology. At the present time, it appears this will not be possible. On the other hand, the Church is investigating all of this.

Speaking from the Christian side, it should be known why a Savior had to be born, live and die for all men. Original Sin.

God bless,
Ed

 

[LittleSoldier]

Just to clarify, no reasonable scientist would say that we descended from apes. Evolutionary biology suggests that humans and apes descended from a common ancestor. Not the same thing.

Thank you for stating this. The idea of humans descending from apes is an amazingly widespread and persistently-held misconception about the theory of evolution and IMHO is one of the main reasons why so many people avidly hate the theory. They honestly believe science is insulting them by proclaiming they, personally, have apes in their family tree.

But the point of the whole discussion is that some people are claiming the Magesterium says one thing and others are claiming that it does not, or that it says something very different.

[bolding mine]

Thank you again. This is where my confusion rests.

 

[buffalo]

Perhaps you don’t understand. The poster asked the following question:

Is what I presented a theory of evolution? Yes, it is. Is it compatible with faith? Yes, it is.

WHY HUMAN EVOLUTION CAN NEVER BECOME PART OF THE DEPOSIT OF FAITH