Pope Francis: ‘Evolution … is not inconsistent with the notion of creation’

[grannymh]

Not sure what you mean by not minding that the literal interpretations don’t do the writers justice?

Simply, I accept every answer regardless.

The human condition? Knowledge - as represented by a tree bearing fruit in the story. Self awareness, knowledge of our own mortality, of the concept of right and wrong, development of a conscience etc. Our superior understanding and ability to build on knowledge makes us different from the rest of the animal kingdom - we can see just how complicated life is. A conscience complicates life! Other animals have limited ‘knowledge’ but not in the same league - they might be wary of predators but they are untroubled by the angst that is part of our lives… For them; food, shelter and sex…and avoid being eaten.
A ‘perfect’ state for a human, before knowledge of right and wrong is, of course impossible, as that knowledge is the very thing that makes us human!
Before knowledge = not human.
After development of understanding of knowledge = human.
Our ‘human’ condition came about by evolution. We evolved from something not human, gradually to being human. From then on, I find social evolution a fascinating subject.
When and where you put in the concept of a ‘soul’ depends on your personal faith.

This is the best answer I have seen. Thank you.

One thing. In my sense of vocabulary, I would say you are describing human nature; however, I can also see that human condition is appropriate.

This is a key sentence. “Our superior understanding and ability to build on knowledge makes us different from the rest of the animal kingdom.” My position is that the rational intellective ability to build on knowledge signifies a non-evolving spiritual principle inherent in human nature which is not in animals.

 

[Hans_W]

My position is that the rational intellective ability to build on knowledge signifies a non-evolving spiritual principle inherent in human nature which is not in animals.

I would be careful here with “rational intellectual ability to build on knowledge”. Mammals with large brains, the great apes, dolphins and even elephants can certainly accumulate knowledge and make rational decisions based on that knowledge. Our language greatly helps in passing on that knowledge.

Intellectually, we are far superior any animal, but I think it’s still more a quantitative distinction, rather than a qualitative leap. Except, of course, that we have something special which we call soul.

 

[Kephart]

The Church does not have a stance on whether Evolution is correct or not and Catholics are allowed to believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis if they want.

Yep-- somewhere in this thread, I mentioned that.

 

[rossum]

That doesn’t follow from what I said.

Yes it does. You told us the 4th Lateran Council said, “God created all things at once by his own power”. What do you think “at once” means there? Does it mean "over a period of 13.5 billion years? Does it mean “over a period of 6,000 years”. Does it mean “at once”?

Words have meanings, and you seem to be denying the meaning of your own words. Or else you are reinterpreting them Humpty Dumpty-style so that they mean something completely different.

rossum

 

[grannymh]

I would be careful here with “rational intellectual ability to build on knowledge”. Mammals with large brains, the great apes, dolphins and even elephants can certainly accumulate knowledge and make rational decisions based on that knowledge. Our language greatly helps in passing on that knowledge.

There is a whale of a difference between animal reasoning and humans using rational skills to build on acquired knowledge.

An animal could have invented the wheel. The difference is that humans built on that knowledge and invented a car with four wheels. Birds fly thousands of miles. The difference is that humans built spaceships on that knowledge. Animals can communicate. The difference is that humans designed computers to communicate.

There is a qualitative leap between ape language and your computer.

 

[grannymh]

The Church does not have a stance on whether Evolution is correct or not and Catholics are allowed to believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis if they want.

I cannot speak for all Churches. So I will address the comment regarding a literal interpretation of Genesis. Genesis has 50 chapters and hundreds of verses. The evolution model covers ants, plants, and people. When it comes to the Catholic Church, would it be possible to be more specific about evolution and Catholic teaching?

 

[Hans_W]

There is a whale of a difference between animal reasoning and humans using rational skills to build on acquired knowledge.

An animal could have invented the wheel. The difference is that humans built on that knowledge and invented a car with four wheels. Birds fly thousands of miles. The difference is that humans built spaceships on that knowledge. Animals can communicate. The difference is that humans designed computers to communicate.

There is a qualitative leap between ape language and your computer.

I don’t quite agree. Yes, if you take a snapshot now, there is a huge difference between a chimpanzee using a stick to get to her termites and humans landing a craft on a comet.

Go back 50,000 years and you’ll find humans pretty much like us. Agriculture was invented 10,000 years ago and only in the last 400 years science and technology has taken off. There is nothing you can’t explain with small gradual changes.

 

[Faith1960]

What do you think happened to the Neanderthals? You believe they existed and went extinct, correct? They were human like, not apes, a cousin of us both I think, but were wiped out. We survived. I believe “theory” is that they were some sort of parallel lesser version of man compared to us. (I personally think we had something to do with their demise.)

But I actually agree nothing has really been proven to transition or progress or evolve. That is a little problematic. So you think we were just as we are now, hundreds of thousands of years ago? As cavemen?

We have Neanderthal and Denisovian DNA, so humans and Neanderthals and Denisovians interbred.

 

[buffalo]

We have Neanderthal and Denisovian DNA, so humans and Neanderthals and Denisovians interbred.

They were both human.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

They were both human.

They were both a unique species which are now extinct.

 

[grannymh]

They were both a unique species which are now extinct.

 

[Faith1960]

Your inability to imagine how this could have come to pass through gradual evolution does not constitute evidence that it could not have happened.

They were both a unique species which are now extinct.

How can they be extinct when some people have the DNA?

 

[Hans_W]

How can they be extinct when some people have the DNA?

You could have some common genes with a grand-uncle of yours who didn’t leave any children. His direct line is “extinct” but you have common ancestors.

 

[RGCheek]

They were both a unique species which are now extinct.

Perhaps because they were absorbed into new populations of a different type and so have progeny, as opposed to simply ceasing to exist.

And how can they truly be a separate species if they can interbreed?

 

[Faith1960]

Perhaps because they were absorbed into new populations of a different type and so have progeny, as opposgoed to simply ceasing to exist.

And how can they truly be a separate species if they can interbreed?

Good question.

 

[WonderAndAwe]

Perhaps because they were absorbed into new populations of a different type and so have progeny, as opposed to simply ceasing to exist.

And how can they truly be a separate species if they can interbreed?

They were the same genus (Homo).

It’s like how Ligers can exist despite their parents being two seperate species under the same genus (Pathera).

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

And how can they truly be a separate species if they can interbreed?

Polar bears and grizzly bears, while different species, can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. This is because the divergence of each of those species from their common ancestor occurred close enough together (within roughly 600,000 years of each other) to allow for it. The same holds true for the mating of homo neanderthalensis and homo denisovians with homo sapiens. Those pairings resulted in us; homo sapiens sapiens (anatomically modern humans).

 

[rossum]

Polar bears and grizzly bears, while different species, can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. This is because the divergence of each of those species from their common ancestor occurred close enough together (within roughly 600,000 years of each other) to allow for it. The same holds true for the mating of homo neanderthalensis and homo denisovians with homo sapiens. Those pairings resulted in us; homo sapiens sapiens (anatomically modern humans).

Just as horses and donkeys are further along in the process of separating. They can produce viable offspring, but mules are (almost always) sterile.

Ligers and tigons have sterile males, but fertile females. That shows that lions and tigers are not as well separated as horses and donkeys.

rossum

 

[grannymh]

I am so happy that I have the guts to believe Divine Revelation.

:extrahappy:

 

[RGCheek]

Polar bears and grizzly bears, while different species, can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. This is because the divergence of each of those species from their common ancestor occurred close enough together (within roughly 600,000 years of each other) to allow for it. The same holds true for the mating of homo neanderthalensis and homo denisovians with homo sapiens. Those pairings resulted in us; homo sapiens sapiens (anatomically modern humans).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

In biology, a species (plural: species) is one of the basic units of biological classification and a taxonomic rank. A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. While in many cases this definition is adequate, the difficulty of defining species is known as the species problem. Differing measures are often used, such as similarity of DNA, morphology, or ecological niche. Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into “infraspecific taxa” such as subspecies (and in botany other taxa are used, such as varieties, subvarieties, and formae).

Then what is the criteria for calling them different species as opposed to just different naturally occurring subspecies of the same species?

I know in science, when it comes to categorization of newly discovered things, we have those who tend to split and those who tend to lump. Splitters use any characteristics they can to justify the new thing to be a new category, for whatever reason, while lumpers do exactly the opposite.

The only major differences between polar bears and grizzly bears is the adaptive color of their fur and their geographical range. Is that enough to make something a new species now? Are Great Danes a different species from Chihuahua’s?

Why separate species for bears and Neanderthals but same species for hugely different breeds of dogs?

But then, the smaller the new species the quicker one can label it an endangered species and thus give a reason to end development in an area and introduce government controls; there is that. But I don’t think it applicable here. Where is the difference?

It would seem, IMO, that Neanderthals and Polar bears are simply subspecies of a larger species, not a new species.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal#Classification

For some time, scientists have debated whether Neanderthals should be classified as Homo neanderthalensis or Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, the latter placing Neanderthals as a subspecies of H. sapiens.

So it seems the issue isn’t quite so settled as you seem to think. Are you giving your opinion as scientific FACT?