Scientists Unveil Missing Link In Evolution

[Arandur]

Except for this one distinction: Eve coming from Adam.

Either she did or she didn’t. If she did then the creation of Adam and Eve is supernatural and God inserted them fully created into the timeline despite what else may or may not have been happening at the time.

God could have done so. But He may have instead crafted the body through evolution, ultimately from the dust of the earth, or “slime” as Pope Leo puts it. Remember, Pope Leo also accepted the possibility of evolution of the body.

Note again the context of Pope Leo’s talk about the creation of Adam and Eve that Ed posted. Note also what the Church says about interpretations of “hows,” scientific matters. Now where does the Church dogmatically define that God created Eve from Adam by way of a rib, as a scientific matter? The Church instead seems to refer to much of Genesis creation stories as symbolism. Why would this one detail not fit the rest of the bill?

 

[reggieM]

…you are claiming that Michaelo and I are saying …

Actually, I consider you to be two different people. But since you both answer posts not directed to you, I supposedly have to read and respond to twice as much and then consider you both to have exactly the same opinion on everything?

 

[Michaelo]

It’s sort of ok, but there are massive problems. Seeking a natural explanation for an immaterial cause is an error. We know that. But you’re right to point out, that’s exactly what evolutionary theory does (if it doesn’t ignore the empirical, observable effects of the soul).

Hmm…I don’t think you understand my point. It doesn’t involve “seeking a natural explanation for an immaterial cause” as science can’t explain the soul’s origin, but it could formulate a natural explanation for the physical mechanism by which the immaterial cause exerts its influence.

But the body is not the source of the influence that changes the body – that is the soul.

Right, I haven’t said anything to the contrary. Again, explaining the physical mechanism by which the soul exerts its influence doesn’t involve usurping the soul’s position as the ultimate immaterial source of the physical effects.

An immaterial cause has an observable, empirically recognized effect on the body. Evolution cannot explain the origin of that cause since evolutionary theory only knows about natural causes like mutations and natural selection.

Yes, Arandur and I have never claimed that evolution can explain the origin of the soul–being a metaphysical phenomenon. However, isn’t it permissible to explain the physical mechanism (by which the soul exerts its influence) that generates these observable, physical effects?

Sorry if I belabored the point, but I wanted to be clear.

 

[Arandur]

Environmental factors are caused by natural processes - or as Darwin would say “fixed natural laws”. Free-choice decisions are not naturalistic or materialistic in origin.

To claim that human development is due to mutations and natural selection, ignores the influence of non-materialistic causes, which are not the product of “fixed natural laws” – since they are not materialistic at all.

If free-will was the same as environmental conditions, then free-will decisions by human beings would essentially be bound by natural laws. But humans can choose “against nature” and actually rise above it. Certainly, the Hebrew people changed their destiny by decisions not driven by natural laws, but by the spiritual nature of the soul. They moved from one place to another.

This is not like environment which is either random or a function of physical laws.

What is your definition of “environmental factors” or “conditions,” and “natural laws?”

I don’t think it’s anything near what I’m referring to as scientific uses of those terms.

The Hebrew people, like all of us, made decisions that, when acted out in the physical world, were affected and completely within the laws of our physical world. They did not violate anything by choosing to move, but were instead subject to the consequences of their choices–moving into a land with a different climate, with different animals and plants, with different peoples they had to strive against. There is no suspension of natural laws. Further, all of those things are what science would classify as environmental factors.

If humans choose to build houses in a given area, they affect the natural environment. Human habitation becomes an environmental factor.

If humans choose to not let certain animals breed and instead pair others together, humans act as an environmental factor on those animals, influence their reproductive availability.

If humans choose to spray pesticides over crops or apply antibacterial chemicals, these choices act as environmental factors making it less likely that pests and bacterias vulnerable to those chemicals will reproduce, while others that are resistant to them will be more likely to reproduce.

So you see, from the scientific perspective, all those human choices are indeed bound by natural laws and can be factored in easily and seamlessly into evolution or ecology as “environmental factors.” In that way, human choices have no impact on natural processes that is not already incorporated into the theories, and the claim that human choices are outside the theories in some way is false.

 

[Michaelo]

reggieM

It appears that I have cleared a major hurdle that you have set for me as I have demonstrated how science can both consider the empirical evidence and avoid denying the soul as the ultimate immaterial source of the physical effects.

 

[edwest2]

What is your definition of “environmental factors” or “conditions,” and “natural laws?”

I don’t think it’s anything near what I’m referring to as scientific uses of those terms.

The Hebrew people, like all of us, made decisions that, when acted out in the physical world, were affected and completely within the laws of our physical world. They did not violate anything by choosing to move, but were instead subject to the consequences of their choices–moving into a land with a different climate, with different animals and plants, with different peoples they had to strive against. There is no suspension of natural laws. Further, all of those things are what science would classify as environmental factors.

If humans choose to build houses in a given area, they affect the natural environment. Human habitation becomes an environmental factor.

If humans choose to not let certain animals breed and instead pair others together, humans act as an environmental factor on those animals, influence their reproductive availability.

If humans choose to spray pesticides over crops or apply antibacterial chemicals, these choices act as environmental factors making it less likely that pests and bacterias vulnerable to those chemicals will reproduce, while others that are resistant to them will be more likely to reproduce.

So you see, from the scientific perspective, all those human choices are indeed bound by natural laws and can be factored in easily and seamlessly into evolution or ecology as “environmental factors.” In that way, human choices have no impact on natural processes that is not already incorporated into the theories, and the claim that human choices are outside the theories in some way is false.

Oh, please. The Hebrew people were guided by God. But in a media world heavily promoting atheism, it’s important to deny things like the Exodus actually happened. All I’m reading here is Evolutionary Sociology, Evolutionary Anthropology and Evolutionary everything else.

Science is grossly incomplete. It needs its other, better, half, the knowledge of God. Like the idea of “Scripture Alone,” Science Alone is not the way to go.

Peace,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

God could have done so. But He may have instead crafted the body through evolution, ultimately from the dust of the earth, or “slime” as Pope Leo puts it. Remember, Pope Leo also accepted the possibility of evolution of the body.

Note again the context of Pope Leo’s talk about the creation of Adam and Eve that Ed posted. Note also what the Church says about interpretations of “hows,” scientific matters. Now where does the Church dogmatically define that God created Eve from Adam by way of a rib, as a scientific matter? The Church instead seems to refer to much of Genesis creation stories as symbolism. Why would this one detail not fit the rest of the bill?

**DID THE HUMAN BODY EVOLVE NATURALLY?
A FORGOTTEN PAPAL DECLARATION **

 

[Arandur]

Oh, please. The Hebrew people were guided by God.

Where did I say they weren’t?

All I said were that the part of their choices acted out in the physical world (migrating, settling, intermarrying or not as the case may be) were affected normally by physics.

Yes God guided them. Yes there were spiritual effects of their choices. The physical and ecological processes of nature functioned normally during OT times just as they do now, except where God works miracles to suspend them (such as the parting of the Red Sea, the manna from heaven, the burning bush, etc.).

I really don’t see where you think there is a conflict, unless you totally misunderstand what I’m saying.

But in a media world heavily promoting atheism, it’s important to deny things like the Exodus actually happened. All I’m reading here is Evolutionary Sociology, Evolutionary Anthropology and Evolutionary everything else.

In referring to the journeys and history of the Hebrew people, we’re not even really talking about evolution. We’re talking about physics and ecology.

Science is grossly incomplete. It needs its other, better, half, the knowledge of God. Like the idea of “Scripture Alone,” Science Alone is not the way to go.

Yes, of course this is true. No where have I advocated Scientism, but rather I’ve argued explicitly against it.

 

[reggieM]

Yes God guided them.

God guided a population, thus affecting their survival. They were not propelled by natural forces or moved by survival interest.

This is one example of any thousands that could be possible.

 

[Arandur]

**DID THE HUMAN BODY EVOLVE NATURALLY?
A FORGOTTEN PAPAL DECLARATION **

No need for such emphasis.

Do I really need to read the whole thing to get the relevant points? I don’t ask you to read such lengthy things offsite in lieu of argument. I provide relevant quotes and direct you to specific areas of my references. Would you please do the same? I don’t have time right now to read the whole thing.

Does this article address the argument that I made against interpreting Arcanum Divinæ Sapientiæ’s reference to Eve being created from the side of Adam as something out of the context of marriage and in the context of science specifically?
Does it address how such an interpretation can be reconciled with how the rest of the Creation story is referred to by the Church as “symbolic” in many of the details of creation?
Does it address how such an interpretation can be reconciled with Pius XII’s explanation of how the Church can accept the evolutionary process as the means by which God created the human body?

What makes this argument authoritative?

Further, consider the many genetic and morphological similarities between us and other members of the “tree of life” (as Benedict puts it), particularly such evidence given earlier as the apparent fusion of chromosomes otherwise shared in common with apes into composite chromosomes, indicating by far the best explanation available for that genetic evidence. If this is the case, how do you reconcile this evidence with the idea of direct supernatural creation of the human body?
Did God just make it look like our bodies evolved, even right down to such genetic, chromosomal fusions?

And what about the other extinct hominids? Were they human, with human souls? Neanderthal and others?

 

[reggieM]

In referring to the journeys and history of the Hebrew people, we’re not even really talking about evolution. We’re talking about physics and ecology.

We’re talking about human beings who possess immortal souls. This example is relevant for the entire history of the human race since the moment the first souls were created by God. It can beyond that. Do animals possess an “immaterial source of activity”? St. Thomas believed so.

In any case, science cannot measure the effect of such things. We can see people making free-decisions. Some are motivated by spiritual awareness (as the Hebrew people were). When did the human soul begin affecting organic life? How much effect did it have?

The effect could have been extreme and profound – so much so, that there is no way to trace human life back to an animal ancestor (how could this immaterial power to have free-will evolve from blind, materialistic, unintelligent forces)?

We see that free-will exists. We observe effects. It cannot have evolved from material substances. Attempts to explain human origins while having zero idea on how much effect the human soul has on the body must necessarily be false.

 

[Arandur]

God guided a population, thus affecting their survival. They were not propelled by natural forces or moved by survival interest.

This is one example of any thousands that could be possible.

Right, but “survival interest” is not the only motivation for moving even among animals and particularly among humans.

My point is that man is subject to the laws of nature except where God suspends them in miracles. With the Hebrews, they endured the elements, the climate, the difference in flora and fauna, presumably different diseases, etc. All natural forces. The settlement of Hebrews in the Holy Land altered the local environment, which had impacts on the flora and fauna that would affect those populations, all by natural forces.

To be clear again, while the Hebrews adapted to these things (their immune systems and their social habits/survival strategies in particular), no scientific theory is suggesting speciation did or should have occurred to make the Hebrews a separate species of humans.

 

[reggieM]

Do I really need to read the whole thing to get the relevant points?

Many evolutionary Catholics seem very eager to read every word of Darwinian science texts – especially to try to prove that there is no Intelligent Design in nature. The same people cannot find a good reason to read an entire papal encyclical.

I hope that’s not the case for you. We should really enrich our Faith first. Papal encyclicals have eternal value. Darwinian speculations and just-so stories aren’t even worth talking about, except that many are taken in by them.

We should also be very aware about how today’s evolutionary culture has spread materialistic philosophy and damaged our understanding of the true nature of human beings.

 

[buffalo]

DID WOMAN EVOLVE FROM THE BEASTS?
A DEFENSE OF TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC DOCTRINE

Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to defend a doctrinal thesis which is quite simple, very clear, very classical, but now very unpopular—not to say openly scorned and derided. I will argue that the formation by God of the first woman, Eve, from the side of the sleeping, adult Adam had, by the year 1880, been proposed infallibly by the universal and ordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Church as literally and historically true; so that this must forever remain a doctrine to be held definitively (at least) by all the faithful. I would express the thesis in Latin as follows:
Definitive tenendum est mulierem primam vere et historice formatam esse a Deo e latere primi viri dormientis.

 

[reggieM]

My point is that man is subject to the laws of nature except where God suspends them in miracles.

Not true at all. St. Paul teaches us that the law of nature is death. Those who are slaves to that law will die in their sins. We are called to a supernatural life – which lifts us above mere nature. Nature brings us to sin - no man can avoid it. Through supernatural grace, we are forgiven and can live a supernatural life in union with Christ.

With the Hebrews, they endured the elements, the climate, the difference in flora and fauna, presumably different diseases, etc. All natural forces.

You’re skipping over the miraculous, but that’s not the point. Even if they just made a free decision to go because they wanted to see what was there – it was not a materialistic cause.

You seem to want to debate this. You’ve accepted that immaterial forces are empiricially observable and have an influence on human life. Now you’re trying to minimize the influence, even though you cannot provide scientific evidence of it.

The point is – evolution posits materialistic causes alone. The soul is an immaterial cause.

To be clear again, while the Hebrews adapted to these things (their immune systems and their social habits/survival strategies in particular), no scientific theory is suggesting speciation did or should have occurred to make the Hebrews a separate species of humans.

No scientific theory takes into consideration that the Hebrew people changed their environment due to an immaterial cause. What impact did that have? Was that the only influence that divine power had on those people?

 

[Arandur]

We’re talking about human beings who possess immortal souls. This example is relevant for the entire history of the human race since the moment the first souls were created by God. It can beyond that. Do animals possess an “immaterial source of activity”? St. Thomas believed so.

I do too, as a matter of fact, which is why I so often used the phrase “souls in the image and likeness of God” in reference to humans (since animal “souls” can’t be in the image and likeness of God, thus the distinction). You and Ed in particular haven’t yet learned to interpret my words as narrowly as I mean them, but rather exaggerate and extrapolate all sorts of things from them. I’m pretty specific about my language, both in what I say and what I don’t say.

In any case, science cannot measure the effect of such things. We can see people making free-decisions. Some are motivated by spiritual awareness (as the Hebrew people were). When did the human soul begin affecting organic life? How much effect did it have?

The effect could have been extreme and profound – so much so, that there is no way to trace human life back to an animal ancestor (how could this immaterial power to have free-will evolve from blind, materialistic, unintelligent forces)?

The effects of the human soul could have been extreme and profound, yes, but what evidence do you have of that? I see far, far more evidence that most of the natural world’s processes and extant organisms can be explained by ecology and evolution (understanding that these were designed and sustained by God). So two questions: 1. What evidence do you have of the impact on non-human organisms by the human soul, after Adam and Eve? 2. What about before Adam and Eve?

I’m not really interested in how the human soul has affected human evolution after Adam and Eve, because we all seem to agree that evolution accurately describes adaptations within a species, and no speciation has occurred within the human race.

We see that free-will exists. We observe effects.

Be careful here. I don’t consider what you’ve said before about observing free will’s effects to be evidence in itself of impacts on development of life before or after Adam and Eve. I’m looking for specific evidence or arguments that would counteract the preponderence of natural evidence and explain how it invalidates science’s current method of incorporating human impacts on other populations of organisms as environmental factors.

It cannot have evolved from material substances.

We’ve always been in agreement here.

Attempts to explain human origins while having zero idea on how much effect the human soul has on the body must necessarily be false.

Again, to what extent is it “false?” Such unqualified statements really don’t mean much, unless you mean false “totally and in every aspect.” What does it make false, to what extent, and why?

 

[Arandur]

Many evolutionary Catholics seem very eager to read every word of Darwinian science texts – especially to try to prove that there is no Intelligent Design in nature. The same people cannot find a good reason to read an entire papal encyclical.

I hope that’s not the case for you. We should really enrich our Faith first. Papal encyclicals have eternal value. Darwinian speculations and just-so stories aren’t even worth talking about, except that many are taken in by them.

I’ve never read a “Darwinian science text,” from the Origin of the Species onward. Excerpts, perhaps, as part of other studies, but mainly just textbooks and journals of science. None of them claimed anything beyond the limits of science as I have described, not that I can recall anyway.

I have read encyclicals, conciliar documents, catechisms, Catholic theology books and periodicals, and Scriptures. I only ask for more direct reference here out of courtesy for time and because I don’t think that a link should be used as a full argument in a forum, particularly without excerpting the part of the link that one wishes to use as their argument.

We should also be very aware about how today’s evolutionary culture has spread materialistic philosophy and damaged our understanding of the true nature of human beings.

The materialistic philosophies are the problem, yes, and those advocating them. Not the science.

 

[Michaelo]

The point is – evolution posits materialistic causes alone. The soul is an immaterial cause.

And yet these are not in conflict with each other. Evolution offers natural explanations because that’s only what it can offer. A materialistic cause of free will, for example, might be some component of the brain yet to be discovered (this is just speculation for the sake of argument). This doesn’t conflict with the soul because the material is a subset of the immaterial with respect to causality. The soul (ultimate immaterial source) is responsible for the brain feature (physical mechanism/material source) which is responsible for various physical effects that we observe.

 

[edwest2]

Science alone is not the answer. I would not teach that it is. Right now, two divergent worldviews are being spread. One is right, the other is definitely misleading.

Just accept the science? Why? The self-starting, self-operating engine? I used to listen to scientists on TV when they talked about life in space. It would go like this: “I believe that if there are planets at a certain distance from their sun that also possessed water, that we would likely find the building blocks of life.” What were the ‘building blocks of life’? Amino acids. Amino acids that would somehow just get together and start making life. I had left that idea unexamined for a while.

If some process like evolution occurred, it happened in a manner that relied on something beyond what is presented in the Biology textbook.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Arandur]

Not true at all. St. Paul teaches us that the law of nature is death. Those who are slaves to that law will die in their sins. We are called to a supernatural life – which lifts us above mere nature. Nature brings us to sin - no man can avoid it. Through supernatural grace, we are forgiven and can live a supernatural life in union with Christ.

Reggie, you are using a completely different sense (meaning) of “law of nature” than I am. The way I’m using it, as scientifically-recognized laws and processes of nature, is very clear from the context in which I use it. Please stop taking my words out of context.

You want to use “law of nature” in a spiritual sense as St. Paul does. I’m not talking about that.

I’m talking about things like gravity, energy, thermodynamics, optics; things defined by disciplines such as organic chemistry, genetics, ecology, meteorology. Do you deny that humans are subject to those things in the physical world? Yes or no, please, then explain as you wish.

You’re skipping over the miraculous, but that’s not the point.

WHAT? I have explicitly several times mentioned miracles? Read my posts more carefully or don’t bother responding!

Even if they just made a free decision to go because they wanted to see what was there – it was not a materialistic cause.

Where are you getting this stuff? The cause of the decision didn’t need to be materialistic. I have never claimed that, nor does science claim that humans make decisions based solely on materialistic causes. I’m not debating the cause of the choice; that has nothing to do with the areas of evolution we’re talking about; it has nothing to do with whether humans are subject to natural forces or not.

After choice comes consequence. The Hebrews endured physical consequences from their environments, and affected their environments in physical ways. Those physical effects operate within normal natural processes except where suspended explicitly by miracles.

You seem to want to debate this. You’ve accepted that immaterial forces are empiricially observable and have an influence on human life. Now you’re trying to minimize the influence, even though you cannot provide scientific evidence of it.

We know by faith that “immaterial forces” affect humans in many ways spiritually. We know by faith that much of our awareness and experience resides in the soul. We know by science that some of these properties of humans are not explainable by physical means. But science can observe how a choice interacts with physical nature, and has incorporated such things in all its theories, including evolution (via environmental factors/impacts). So what I’m saying is that I see no evidence that human choices have affected nature in ways that would break or defy scientific theories like evolution. What evidence do you have that they do?

No scientific theory takes into consideration that the Hebrew people changed their environment due to an immaterial cause. What impact did that have? Was that the only influence that divine power had on those people?

Science doesn’t need to. The Hebrews impacted their environment in ways typical of other human migrations. They didn’t violate all the laws and processes of nature. Just how do you think they “broke” evolutionary functions of adaptation among the flora and fauna they encountered? How did they destroy ecological processes?

If they did neither, then why don’t you agree with me that they didn’t operate outside the theory of evolution one bit?

(Keep in mind, we’re not talking about evolutionary psychology or other psuedo-science philosophies here–I long ago disavowed those; we’re only talking about biological evolutionary forces).