Science & Religion

[StAnastasia]

Bad analogy.

Wrong - goods analogy!

The spectrum might shade into different colors, but each specimen of the genus Homo is a distinct organism, can be classified into one species or another.

Correct, but one cannot mark a point where one became another. The transition is seamless.

At some point, you will have species A producing children who can be classified as species B.

False. You need to study evolution to understand how it works.

 

[You]

How many skeletons survived being eaten by hyenas? How many skeletons survived acidic forest soils that dissolve bone? How many are still buried that we haven’t found yet?

And where are the bones of Adam? Eve’s skeleton? Does the failure to find their fossil remains mean that they didn’t exist?

rossum

Lucy survived, and possibly 12 others. Conditions did not change there enough over the past 3 million years to decompose their bones. So I am thinking if you find one skeleton you should find 560 million skeletons.
And I thought these upright creatures were creatures of the savannah not forests.
Adam and Eve existed, as sure as we are here existing. But they are two skeletons, I’m just thinking about the other 560 million or so skeletons that are out there.

 

[Ahimsa]

Wrong - goods analogy!

Well, we’ll see.

Correct, but one cannot mark a point where one became another. The transition is seamless.

Let me ask you this. If you are given a specimen of the *Homo *genus, would you say that this specimen belongs to a certain Homo species?

 

[inocente]

So then, I take it that you do not believe that there was any original First Couple who initiated the propagation of the human race? Interesting. I wonder how the species arrived spontaneously in a large group (so to speak).

Elizabeth, we shouldn’t go too deeply since discussing evolution is banned here, but species evolve gradually. It’s common sense that in the wild we never see new species popping instantly into existence, rather the changes are so gradual across generations that we rarely notice. Anyone who thinks evolution is some kind of magic just doesn’t understand.

 

[You]

Not exactly knee deep, and those are skeletons that were buried. Unlike animal bones. If the concept of decay, that all things pass, is new to you, read a bit of Santa Teresa.

You study bones of early hominids but not 560 million skeletons of early hominids. If the conditions are right to preserve one skeleton they are right to preserve all skeletons, surely.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I feel compelled to insert here a theological point from the C.A. body of topics, given that there are contributors to this discussion forum who are inquirers to the Faith and may become confused about the position of the Church, especially since there are contributors who are also known to hold positions of authority:

[emphases mine]

On Adam, Eve and Evolution:

“the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God” (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.

(The above is not an optional position for a believing Catholic. Just to make that clear for inquirers and lurkers.)

Adam and Eve: Real People

It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).

The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).

catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution

 

[Elizabeth502]

Elizabeth, we shouldn’t go too deeply since discussing evolution is banned here, but species evolve gradually. It’s common sense that in the wild we never see new species popping instantly into existence, rather the changes are so gradual across generations that we rarely notice. Anyone who thinks evolution is some kind of magic just doesn’t understand.

You misunderstood my comment(s).

 

[StAnastasia]

You study bones of early hominids but not 560 million skeletons of early hominids. If the conditions are right to preserve one skeleton they are right to preserve all skeletons, surely.

Not at all. Fossilization is a rather rare occurrence. “Fossilization is a rare event. The chances of a given individual being preserved in the fossil record are very small. Some organisms, however, have better chances than others because of the composition of their skeletons or where they lived. This also applies to the various parts of organisms. For example, plants and vertebrates (animals with bones) are made up of different parts that can separate after death. The different parts can be transported by currents to different locations and be preserved separately. A fossil toe bone might be found at one place and a fossil rib at another location. We could assume that they are from different animals when, in fact, they came from the same one.”

See ucmp.berkeley.edu/

 

[Wardog]

Not at all. Fossilization is a rather rare occurrence. “Fossilization is a rare event. The chances of a given individual being preserved in the fossil record are very small. Some organisms, however, have better chances than others because of the composition of their skeletons or where they lived. This also applies to the various parts of organisms. For example, plants and vertebrates (animals with bones) are made up of different parts that can separate after death. The different parts can be transported by currents to different locations and be preserved separately. A fossil toe bone might be found at one place and a fossil rib at another location. We could assume that they are from different animals when, in fact, they came from the same one.”

See ucmp.berkeley.edu/

Have you a better answer than God created man and animals to explain why all warm blooded animals are symetrical with 4 limbs? If it were random chance, would not there be asymetrical animals, perhaps with an odd number of limbs; or 6 limbs?

 

[StAnastasia]

Let me ask you this. If you are given a specimen of the *Homo *genus, would you say that this specimen belongs to a certain Homo species?

Yes it belongs to a certain species. But any member of a species of Homo is in the same species as his or her parents and children. The transition from one species to another is very long and gradual, and accumulation of mutations over tends of thousands of years. A human of 2011 could breed with a human of the first century, or of ten thousand years ago.

The further back one goes, the less chance there is of successful mating and reproduction. But from one generation to the next there is no difficulty. Your “first human” (whatever that means) could have bred with members of its parents’ generation as easily as you could have bred with members of your own parents’ generation.

StAnastasia

 

[buffalo]

But they are two skeletons, I’m just thinking about the other 560 million or so skeletons that are out there.

It is thought Adam is buried on Calvary.

http://www.jerusalemholyplaces.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/a_Adam-Chapel_s1-300x225.jpg

http://www.liturgy.co.nz/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/crucifixion16thcentury.jpg

 

[Ahimsa]

But any member of a species of Homo is in the same species as his or her parents and children.

OK, now think about this. If what you said is true, then that means that every Homo sapiens had only Homo sapiens as its parents.

What you’re saying is that Homo sapiens always existed, each H. sapiens couple only producing H. sapiens offspring, and each H. sapiens individual having only H. sapiens parents…

…or that God created Homo sapiens from scratch, from the dust of the ground.

 

[StAnastasia]

Have you a better answer than God created man and animals to explain why all warm blooded animals are symetrical with 4 limbs? If it were random chance, would not there be asymetrical animals, perhaps with an odd number of limbs; or 6 limbs?

There are animals with an odd number of limbs (Starfish), and with six limbs (Insects). Warmblooded animals share four limbedness because of common ancestry. Four-limbed ancestor had warmblooded descendants, and the developmental pathways leading to four limbs were pretty well locked in by then.

 

[buffalo]

Elizabeth, we shouldn’t go too deeply since discussing evolution is banned here, but species evolve gradually. It’s common sense that in the wild we never see new species popping instantly into existence, rather the changes are so gradual across generations that we rarely notice. Anyone who thinks evolution is some kind of magic just doesn’t understand.

The fossil record shows abrupt appearance, stasis and variation within. We now know the earliest cells were complex, DNA fights mutations, natural selection is a conservative process not a creative one, features supposedly evolving several times (points to common design), the tree of life is now a bush, HGT, adaptation, No more junk DNA, ATP synthase motor, core genes conserved, epigenetics and more…

Life is a lot tougher now than ever before for evo fans.

 

[Lui]

Lui, Adam need not have been fictitious if you understand him to stand for all of humanity, rather than as an historical individual.

I understand the symbolic character of Adam which is how it is meant to be understood. I had several discussions with various priests and none of them told me that they actually existed as our first parents. One priest told me the whole evolution story and had more knowledge than I did(not saying I consider myself an expert) but you see how many people in this thread believe we ACTUALLY all came from one set of parents called Adam and Eve who I’m sure never existed.
Also people who are against evolution have this misconception that evolutionist say that a Homo erectus suddenly got a Homo sapien child(usually they use the phrase monkey instead of Homo erectus). Evolution is such a slow process that the evolving doesn’t go from one generation to the next. You just see a change in thousands of generations. There were many human like species around for a long time. The Neanderthal was very human but he wasn’t human.

For me to believe we all came from a single couple called Adam and Eve, and that Adam lived to be a thousand years old is absurd.

There was no first human like there was no first elephant. There were always thousands of the same species that evolved together.

 

[inocente]

By “human”, I’m referring to a species of the genus Homo, not necessarily Homo sapiens. Having said that, the first human could have been a male or female. Since s/he was the first, and his/her parents were not “human”, but nonetheless closely related, s/he mated with a non-human. Alternatively, perhaps the first humans were twins (fraternal, male and female) who mated.

You seem to be saying either that being human is some kind of infectious disease or that we’re all the products of in-breeding. Is there a reason for going to such lengths?

Incidentally, the scientific classifications here are not exact and can’t be used like black and white, they don’t have the purpose or intent of judging individuals.

You can choose to define “human” any way you want, and thus determine when the “first” human appeared.

So you’re admitting it’s a completely subjective judgment, like whether you prefer Beyonce or Bach?

I don’t think the first human necessarily knew how to talk. And he/she might feel rather proud that her/his parents were the parents of the first true human.*

Perhaps if you think about it a bit, you might see the racist overtones of calling someone’s parents subhuman.

This moral issue doesn’t exist in the traditional tale of Adam and Eve, since they have no ancestors to worry about, nor does it exist in the scientific case, since humanity evolves very gradually. The issue only exists if you try to cobble the two together by claiming first humans with subhuman parents.

 

[rossum]

Lucy survived, and possibly 12 others.

A lot more than twelve. Have you any idea how many specimens of Homo erectus we have? And that is just one ancestral species.

Conditions did not change there enough over the past 3 million years to decompose their bones.

In that specific location. Other locations had different conditions.

And I thought these upright creatures were creatures of the savannah not forests.

Our remote ancestors started in forests, because all of Africa was covered in forest before the climate changed and more savannah appeared.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

There are animals with an odd number of limbs (Starfish), and with six limbs (Insects). Warmblooded animals share four limbedness because of common ancestry. Four-limbed ancestor had warmblooded descendants, and the developmental pathways leading to four limbs were pretty well locked in by then.

Nope -

From the textbook Explore Evolution:

Convergence is a deeply intriguing mystery, given how complex some of the structures are. Some scientists are skeptical that an undirected process like natural selection and mutation would have stumbled upon the same complex structure many different times. Advocates of neo-Darwinism, on the other hand, think convergent structures simply show that natural selection can produce functional innovations more than once. For other scientists, the phenomenon of convergence raises doubts about how significant homology really is as evidence for Common Descent. Convergence, by definition, affirms that similar structures do not necessarily point to common ancestry. Even neo-Darwinists acknowledge this. But if similar features can point to having a common ancestor–and to not having a common ancestor–how much does “homology” really tell us about the history of life? (p. 48)

 

[StAnastasia]

OK, now think about this. If what you said is true, then that means that every Homo sapiens had only Homo sapiens as its parents. What you’re saying is that Homo sapiens always existed, each H. sapiens couple only producing H. sapiens offspring, and each H. sapiens individual having only H. sapiens parents…or that God created Homo sapiens from scratch, from the dust of the ground.

I’m not saying this at all. Individuals of a given species are genetically compatible (for breeding purposes) with preceding and succeeding generations. How far this compatibility extends into the past and future varies; redwoods trees are relatively little changed over 200 million years. Some lines speciate more rapidly than others.

 

[rossum]

Have you a better answer than God created man and animals to explain why all warm blooded animals are symetrical with 4 limbs? If it were random chance, would not there be asymetrical animals, perhaps with an odd number of limbs; or 6 limbs?

We evolved from a fish with 4 fins, and which kept its fins on stumps. See Coelacanths and Lungfish for examples of fins-on-stumps.

Most animal with limbs do indeed have six - insects.

Symmetry is down to embryonic development. One side is a copy of the other. Read Shubin’s “Your Inner Fish” for more information.

Evolution is not a random process.

rossum