Why evolution doesnt matter.

[StAnastasia]

A non-souled human would be biologically the same species as a souled human, and the two would be able to breed successfully since their DNAs would be essentially the same. If you prefer, you can call the non-souled humans “huma” as they are almost, but not quite, fully human. Biologically they are the same species but theologically they are different. That allows for a large population of physical humans, with only two theological humans among them. rossum

Rossum, I appreciate what you are trying to do here, but it doesn’t make much theological sense to me to speak of two “ensouled” humans living among a larger population of “non-ensouled humans.” Not only does it make no sense to think in terms of God plunking souls into hominid bodies, but the ensouled children would for several generations have to breed either with their ensouled siblings, or with their non-ensouled cousins, The same situation would have occurred with the descendants of Noah and his wife after teh Flood.

Mreover, presumably there would still be a large population of non-ensouled humans living amongst us today, as there is no reason to believe either that they would have simply died out, or that God would have sytematically killed them off like he did the Egyptian children.

I think rather of hominids evolving into being ensouled Homo sapiens.

StAnastasia

 

[warpspeedpetey]

It’s not a fact! If you think it is, then you’ll have to explain to me what your concept of ‘fact’ is.

*i had to trim a little, the character limits seemde to have changed. lets try to shorten these to specifics.

indeed it is, its as much a fact as your authority over the things you create is a legal fact. enforceable by law even on the human scale of justice. the creator has legitimate authority over the created. and why not should it be this way, it follows the natural flow of authority which we have always accepted.

I do, but if what I create is a living, sentient being, then my authority gives way at some point to this creatures own interests.

first i might ask why?, but that idea is preceded in that you are able to exercise your own interests.

If we have the technology someday to create “nuPeople” in the label – totally our own creation, we are not morally entitled to do with them as we please, to treat them as means to an end, rather than ends in themselves.

how is anything entirely our own creation? if i assemble a car from parts created by someone else is that not their car? just because i rearrange them into a certain order, does that limit their moral authority over the created parts and hence the car? nuPeople would seem to be as much a creation of G-d as olPeople. hence as much a created being as we are and then subject to the authority of G-d.

If we are talking about inanimate, non-sentient objects being created, we can treat our creations like any other of our property. But if our creation is living sentience, our authority becomes on of stewardship.

I think that’s fine if we can say “no thanks” due the moral objections of our conscience, and we die, that’s the end of it.QUOTE]

you are absolutely free to maintain a separation from G-d. that separation in and of itself is considered bad, your choosing to leave the mansion for the shantytown. infinitely less appealing, but if freedom is your highest goal, then the consequences of said freedom shouldnt matter.

What part of my life does God not assert authority and sovereignty over? Is there even a private thought that Catholics would say God does not know, and hold me accountable for under his authority?

totalitarian states seek to prevent the individual from contravening what their law is, using state sponsored terror tactics, re education camps, restricting speech, public association, etc. you and i however are perfectly free to contravene G-ds law. we are not stopped in any way. definitely not a totalitarianism.

It’s objectively wrong because the community and social cohesion breaks down where wanton killing is not prevented and discouraged. And it’s objectively a violation of the Golden Rule – QUOTE]

did you just use the words “objectively wrong” in the description of moral situations? does this mean that you admit there are objective morals? if so, then why should we accept your version of “objective morality” under what authority do you propose to place this objective morality? the morality i know is based on the authority of the creator over the created, not a rubric applicable to a created individual or group of them.

the golden rule is not a social contract, nor is a violation of it objectively wrong, if you are strong enough to do so while avoiding repercusiions, then why not? the golden rule is only helpful to the weak, those strong enough to take what they want or to enforce their will have no need for it, it is a subjective restriction on their freedom.

nor is the violation of the golden rule, a society killer. we are quite capable of surviving and having societies where in the golden rule is not followed, where the strong or numerous rule. its done all over the globe, and has been for centuries. take the roman empire, they had no golden rule, they had slaves, client states, etc, and they survived and thrived for centuries.

This is the moral poverty of Christianity – God making one vessel “unto dishonor” just because it’s his good pleasure to use human lives that way. Or ordering the genocide of entire races/tribes/communities. Under your model, a god who demanded ritual child sacrifice and the torture of innocents as propitiation would be just as good and just as any other god, because, as you say, “there really is no such thing as an abuse of power”.

This is moral abdication, a stance which would worship any form of wickedness and cruelty and call it good, because it conflates power with goodness.

its not moral abdication, its acceptance of a moral authority. that of the creator over the creation, entirely legitimate. what you are calling evil, is simply your subjective determination. for instance, the midianites were wiped out, you call that an injustice, yet their punishment was just, they killed the Jews, they slaughtered their women and children, their women led the Jewish men into the worship of strange G-ds, separating them from G-d in a heinous manner. their destructuion was entirely just.

as our governments claim the right to impose the death penalty, how much more so then the right of the Creator?

and in that you say that certain things are objectively wrong, child sacrifice and so forth, you admit that there is an objective morality.

He could have. But choosing to be a slave doesn’t mean you are not a slave. Why do you think Paul or the Muslim use the terms they use?

-TS

a slave cannot choose, a free man can. the terminology reflects the desire of the participant, not the actual state of slavery. its artistic license. no one forced Paul. ergo, not a slave.

 

[rossum]

There may have been other “females” alive at the time, but that doesn’t change the fact that we got all our mitochondrial DNA from a “single women”.

However, our mitochondrial DNA is only a small percentage of our overall DNA. It is impossible that we got the rest of our DNA from that same woman because there is too much variation in our current DNA to allow that. There were other women alive at the time from whom we are also descended because we have some of their DNA as well.

This is a very important point that cannot be over looked. What you have said about there being other “women” is really irrelevant; since, the Christian belief says that according to divine revelation the human race as we know it began with two human beings with souls, which is the very factor by which a Christian deems relevant the very point of pointing out that all conscious persons as we know them share their DNA with a single female.

Souls do not appear in DNA so it is impossible for science to tell whether or not Mitochondrial Eve had a soul. We only share a small part of our DNA with that single female, about 16,000 mtDNA base pairs in 3,000,000,000 total DNA base pairs. The rest of our DNA came mostly from the other humans alive at the same time.

rossum

 

[jkiernan56]

“The ultimate truth is there is no ultimate truth”

Watch out for sharp objects … LMAO !!!

What is your point of reference today? oops … I mean this second … ooops … I meant this second …

"We all live in a yellow submarine, a yellow submarine, a yellow submarine … " la la la la

Subjective relativism - what complete nonsense!!!

 

[rossum]

Watch out for sharp objects … LMAO !!!

What is your point of reference today? oops … I mean this second … ooops … I meant this second …

"We all live in a yellow submarine, a yellow submarine, a yellow submarine … " la la la la

Subjective relativism - what complete nonsense!!!

You are not the first person to notice my sig. The original source is Mark Siderits, “Thinking on Empty: Madhyamika Anti-Realism and Canons of Rationality” in S Biderman and B.A. Schaufstein, eds, Rationality In Question (1989). Dordrecht: Brill.

I have not read Siderits but saw the quote in a piece on Nagarjuna. The “Madhyamika” in Siderits’ title refers to the religious and philosophical school of Buddhism that Nagarjuna founded. I have seen the same quote again in other places in reference to the Madhyamika and Nagarjuna - it seems quite popular. The quote is intentionally paradoxical; paradox is necessary to remind us that words are insufficient when trying to describe the fundamental nature of reality.

For a philosophical discussion of Nagarjuna and reality see the web article Nagarjuna and the Limits of Thought. The Siderits quote is at the end of section four of the article:
There is, then, no escape. Nagarjuna’s view is contradictory. The contradiction is, clearly a paradox of expressibility. Nagarjuna succeeds in saying the unsayable, just as much as the Wittgenstein of the Tractatus. We can think (and characterize) reality only subject to language, which is conventional, so the ontology of that reality is all conventional. It follows that the conventional objects of reality do not ultimately (non-conventionally) exist. It also follows that nothing we say of them is ultimately true. That is, all things are empty of ultimate existence; and this is their ultimate nature, and is an ultimate truth about them. They hence cannot be thought to have that nature; nor can we say that they do. But we have just done so. As Mark Siderits (1989) has put it, “the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.”

rossum

 

[MindOverMatter]

However, our mitochondrial DNA is only a small percentage of our overall DNA. It is impossible that we got the rest of our DNA from that same woman because there is too much variation in our current DNA to allow that. There were other women alive at the time from whom we are also descended because we have some of their DNA as well.

Its seems now that you are changing your information as you see fit. So now you are saying that we “all” got our mitochondrial DNA from one particular women, and then we got different DNA from another women!? Doesn’t that sound a bit funny to you? How is it possible that we “all” have DNA that is decedent of one particular women, and at the same time we also have the DNA of other females? I don’t know any better, as i am just going by what another poster said, but I am not sure that you have a clue about what you are talking about; unless you are now claiming that the scientific evidence doesn’t tell us that all our mitochondrial DNA came from one women. Or maybe you are saying that we share the DNA, but we do not have a direct bloodline with this so called “eve”, but just happen to be so mixed up genetically that we all have her DNA by chance. Otherwise how can we all have her DNA? If so, it surprises me that they would choose the word eve. Or perhaps you are just speculating. Or perhaps i am just misinterpreting the whole thing. Can you please clarify?

Souls do not appear in DNA so it is impossible for science to tell whether or not Mitochondrial Eve had a soul.

It is irrelevant. What i want to know, is whether we all share a direct bloodline to one single female.

We only share a small part of our DNA with that single female,

In what sense do we share DNA with that single female?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

“Reason” doesn’t explain the method you apply to a metaphysical proposition. For example, how would you stress test your idea that “essence is the capacity to hold existence”. I think applying your method to that proposition would be quite enlightening for me.

obviously we all know what reason is, if you are asking for some system analogous to the scientific method there is none. how do you stress anything that is immaterial? i wouldnt begin to know, i know how to stress test materials and physical systems, but how does one stress test concepts?

When you disintegrate an object, “it” is not “it” any more. That’s what disintegration means. The original “it” exists no more, and you are left with raw materials, which are a very different “it”. The point being that no ontological change occurs – the atoms and molecules that made up the bicycle are still around, just not organized in the complex way we associate with the term “bicycle”. The atoms are the same as they ever were.

the existence has not changed, only the essence. all the existence that was present before still is, only the essence, what made the object, what it was has changed. it is no longer that object, it is now some consituent part, each part is is now a seperate thing, as it is now defined by its essence. it is an ontologically different object than it was before. but funny how that insight from a monk, stated centuries before modern atomic theory holds true.

How is essence distinguished from “organization of matter/energy”. Essence seems to be entirely superfluous, as anything it attempts to explain is trivially handled by noting the organizational and emergent qualities of the configuration. Water’s “waterness” is explained by its bonding of hydrogen and oxygen atoms. Water is water because of its particular organization of matter/energy. The hydrogen atoms in a water molecule are perfectly interchangeable with a hydrogen atom taken from something else – the air, for example. It has no innate “waterness” or “airness”.

the beauty of course being in that essence is applicable regardless of the material nature of the subject. it applies equally well to the immaterial, and allows us a platform to reason beyond the mere physical to those questions that cannot be answered by mere scientism.

We do not. What knowledge do we have beyond what science gives us. I can’t see any at all here in what you’ve said.

really? because this knowledge was correct as shown by science in the study of the empirically observable centuries prior to the time that natural philosophy caught up. how can you not see that science verifies the intuition of being?

Well, perhaps, but if so, that isn’t shown by what you’ve said here. As it is, you’ve made a point about the frivolity of “essence”. It’s totally superfluous to understanding, modeling, using, or otherwise interacting with a bicycle. It’s epistemically inert.

as it correctly describes the physical situation. it doesnt strike me as epistemically invalid, you may dislike that the correct knowledge was found by insight rather than the scientific method, that doesnt change its validity.

See, this is just fluffy language borrowing from physical concepts. What do you mean by “capacity”, and what do you mean by “existence”? What is your definition of “existence”, as you use it here? I’m interested to see how you answer this without stealing concepts from physics.

capacity generally means the ability to recieve or hold, while existence simple means to be. but you knew that, and as i am a member of the generations steeped in the philosophy of scientism, and as all scientific concepts owe their existence ultimately to metaphysics, then i see no need to steal a term from some branch of metaphysics, in that we already own them.

It certainly seems difficult to show how it works, or adds value, epistemically!

its a difficult concept to undertand, but as we can see it proved quantitatively in the natural philosophies where it is concerned with the empirically observable, i think that our modern conveniences upon which it is ultimately based is of great epistemic value.

 

[rossum]

Its seems now that you are changing your information as you see fit. So now you are saying that we “all” got our mitochondrial DNA from one particular women, and then we got different DNA from another women!

Correct. We all get our mitochondrial DNA from one woman. We can get our nuclear DNA from other women and men. I get my mitochondrial DNA from my mother’s mother. I only get one quarter of the rest of my DNA from her. The remaining three quarters comes from my mother’s father, my father’s mother and my father’s father.

Doesn’t that sound a bit funny to you?

No. I have two parents, four grandparents and eight great grandparents. Only one woman in each generation of ancestors contributes my mitochondrial DNA. All members of the earlier generation contribute to my nuclear DNA. This is elementary genetics.

How is it possible that we “all” have DNA that is decedent of one particular women, and at the same time we also have the DNA of other females?

Study your own grandparents and basic genetics. If you do not understand basic genetics then you will make mistakes in this discussion.

I don’t know any better, as i am just going by what another poster said, but I am not sure that you have a clue about what you are talking about; unless you are now claiming that the scientific evidence doesn’t tell us that all our mitochondrial DNA came from one women.

We get about 16,000 base pairs of DNA from Mitochondrial Eve. We get the rest of our 3,000,000,000 base pairs of DNA from other men and women living at the same time. What is so difficult to understand about that? You can inherit nuclear DNA from many grandparents, you can only inherit mitochondrial DNA from one grandparent. Do you understand why there is this difference in the inheritance of the two types of DNA? If not then you need to read up on the subject.

What i want to know, is whether we all share a direct bloodline to one single female.

Yes we do. We also share direct bloodlines to other males and females, but they are not as easy to identify because of the different ways mitochondrial DNA and nuclear DNA are inherited. The method that works for mitochondrial DNA and the Y-chromosome does not work on the rest of our DNA.

rossum

 

[reggieM]

If what you have written here is true, then i am sure there would have been an official pronouncement or message from the Pope stating that the theory of Evolution is incompatible with faith on the grounds that it necessarily contradicts the story of Adam and Eve…

You’re right – there would have been. Aside from Pope Pius XII’s magisterial document Humani Generis which teaches that we must accept that all of human life decended from Adam and Eve, there is this …

…the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. Mainly concerned with evolution as it “involves the question of man,” however, Pope John Paul’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

…and that we are therefore barred from believing in the theory of Evolution. I haven’t seen nor heard of this message or pronouncement.

I’ve just posted it for you. The pope condemns “several theories” of evolution – mainly neo-Darwinism (mainstream evolutionary theory) which is materialist and atheistic. The Holy See might permit some kind of theistic evolution but that is almost nowhere supported in current science today.

I don’t want to accuse you of being a liar, so can you please provide evidence for your assertion.

You’ve already accused him of spreading evil in his opposition to evolutionary theories condemned by the Holy See as “incompatible with the Catholic faith”.

 

[tjm190]

“explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.”

I wasn’t aware that mainstream evolutionary theory explicitly said “and btw, God had nothing to do with any of this”

 

[reggieM]

“explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.”

I wasn’t aware that mainstream evolutionary theory explicitly said “and btw, God had nothing to do with any of this”

You might have missed these. Here are excerpts from biology textbooks, explaining evolutionary theory.

If evolution acts without plan or purpose – that is an explicit denial of the causal role of divine providence.

Darwin made spiritual explanations of the development of life useless – thus, the theory explicitly denies the causal role of divine providence.

The Levine Miller text explicitly stated: “there is no divine plan to guide us”. That is an explicit denial of the causal role of divine providence.

A causal role for divine providence would mean that there is a purpose and goal. That’s the meaning of providence. When the textbook says that evolution does not have a goal or purpose – that explicitly “denies divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life”.

The Curtis Barnes text states: “we are not created for any special purpose”. This explicitly denies divine providence as having a causal role.

“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.”
(Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; emphasis in original.)

“**Humans represent just one tiny, largely fortuitous, and late-arising twig **on the enormously arborescent bush of life.”
(Stephen J Gould quoted in Biology, by Peter H Raven & George B Johnson (5th ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pg 15; (6th ed., McGraw Hill, 2000), pg. 16.)

“By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”
(Evolutionary Biology, by Douglas J. Futuyma (3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc., 1998), p. 5.)

“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.”
(Biology: Discovering Life by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st ed., D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; (2nd ed… D.C. Heath and Co., 1994), p. 161; emphases in original.)

“Adopting this view of the world means accepting not only the processes of evolution, but also the view that the living world is constantly evolving, and that evolutionary change occurs without any goals.’ The idea that evolution is not directed towards a final goal state has been more difficult for many people to accept than the process of evolution itself.”
(Life: The Science of Biology by William K. Purves, David Sadava, Gordon H. Orians, & H. Craig Keller, (6th ed., Sinauer; W.H. Freeman and Co., 2001), pg. 3.)

“It is difficult to avoid the speculation that Darwin, as has been the case with others, found the implications of his theory difficult to confront. “The real difficulty in accepting Darwins theory has always been that it seems to diminish our significance. Earlier, astronomy had made it clear that the earth is not the center of the solar universe, or even of our own solar system. Now the new biology asked us to accept the proposition that, like all other organisms, we too are the products of a random process that, as far as science can show, we are not created for any special purpose or as part of any universal design.”
(Invitation to Biology, by Helena Curtis & N. Sue Barnes(3rd ed., Worth, 1981), pgs. 474-475.)

“The advent of Darwinism posted even greater threats to religion by suggesting that biological relationship, including the origin of humans and of all species, could be explained by natural selection without the intervention of a god. Many felt that **evolutionary randomness and uncertainty had replaced a deity **having conscious, purposeful, human characteristics. **The Darwinian view **that evolution is a historical process and present-type organisms were not created spontaneously but formed in a succession of selective events that occurred in the past, **contradicted the common religious view **that there could be no design, biological or otherwise, without an intelligent designer. “The variability by which selection depends may be random, but adaptions are not; they arise because selection chooses and perfects only what is adaptive. In this scheme a god of design and purpose is not necessary …“Nevertheless, **faith in religious dogma has been eroded **by natural explanations of its mysteries, by a deep understanding of the sources of human emotional needs, and by the recognition that ethics and morality can change among different societies and that acceptance of such values need not depend on religion.”
(Evolution by Monroe, W. Strickberger (3rd ed., Jones & Bartlett, 2000), pg. 70-71)

 

[itinerant1]

Science looks at material things, so for a palaeontologist this will be fossils, old bones, DNA sequences and the like. None of those things are a soul or give any indication of whether or not a soul was present. We cannot see “here is the soul” written in our DNA.

Of course, science cannot say exactly when hominisation occurred.

A non-souled human would be biologically the same species as a souled human, and the two would be able to breed successfully since their DNAs would be essentially the same. If you prefer, you can call the non-souled humans “huma” as they are almost, but not quite, fully human. Biologically they are the same species but theologically they are different.

That allows for a large population of physical humans, with only two theological humans among them.

rossum

Using the term human in an equivocal manner is bound to create confusion.

Philosophically, I am not sure it makes sense to hypothesize beings biologically identical but radically distinct in form. Form specifies matter and a non-rational form would be specifying matter in an identical way to how a rational form specifies matter. The idea at least appears to create more problems than it solves.

 

[tjm190]

“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.”- All natural process are undirected, the author is just clarifying.

“Humans represent just one tiny, largely fortuitous, and late-arising twig"- from the biological perspective, would you disagree?

“Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous”- As in he allowed for an atheistic view on the origin of life, although the author might have allowed his personal bias in there.

The author in this next one is stating the social implications of evolution, not that those views were factual.

“Adopting this view of the world means accepting not only the processes of evolution, but also the view that the living world is constantly evolving, and that evolutionary change occurs without any goals."- See number 1

"we too are the products of a random process that, as far as science can show, we are not created for any special purpose or as part of any universal design.”- as fas as science can show being the a key part of that phrase.

And again, the final one states the views some had as a result of evolution- not that there were true views.

 

[itinerant1]

“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.”- All natural process are undirected, the author is just clarifying.

“Humans represent just one tiny, largely fortuitous, and late-arising twig"- from the biological perspective, would you disagree?

“Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous”- As in he allowed for an atheistic view on the origin of life, although the author might have allowed his personal bias in there.

The author in this next one is stating the social implications of evolution, not that those views were factual.

“Adopting this view of the world means accepting not only the processes of evolution, but also the view that the living world is constantly evolving, and that evolutionary change occurs without any goals."- See number 1

"we too are the products of a random process that, as far as science can show, we are not created for any special purpose or as part of any universal design.”- as fas as science can show being the a key part of that phrase.

And again, the final one states the views some had as a result of evolution- not that there were true views.

Those are views characteristic of materialist evolution, and Darwin became a materialist, indeed. But a materialist explanation of evolution is certainly not the only explanation. A sound non-materialist theory of evolution explains more and better — it’s mo’ betta!

 

[itinerant1]

Well, if you think a 12,000 word chunk of Aquinas’ writing is the only way to capture it, then that would be quite cumbersome, wouldn’t it? I guess I’d say your response leaves me thinking you’re a bit new to the topic. Do you recognize “being qua being” from Aristotle? If so, do you see the connection Aquinas draws from that to his conviction that the subject of metaphysics is “being” (*ens) *that this ens is common to all beings? This is the “intuition of being” – it’s not an empirical construct, right? If not, whence this conviction, and do you agree it’s central to Aquinas’ thought?

If you want to take that up on a separate thread, I’m game! I’m quite interested in claims that hold this central idea is NOT sourced in the intuition.

-TS

Certainly the subject matter of metaphysics, being-as-such or being qua being is not an empirical construct. But does it follow that it is the “intuition of being”? or an intuitive type of knowledge that grasps the reality?

Yet, being qua being is not the “heart” of Thomistic metaphysics. The heart of Thomism involves the primary determinations of being, but even further, one of the determinations that is prior and more fundamental than the rest, and it is the latter which is the highlight of Thomistic metaphysics.

 

[rossum]

Using the term human in an equivocal manner is bound to create confusion.

Agreed, which is why I introduced the suggestion of “huma” instead - almost, but not quite, human.

Philosophically, I am not sure it makes sense to hypothesize beings biologically identical but radically distinct in form. Form specifies matter and a non-rational form would be specifying matter in an identical way to how a rational form specifies matter.

Are you denying transubstantiation? In that case the Form is very different from the Matter due to the direct intervention of God. What I am proposing is that initially the only difference was in the Form with no change in the Matter, again due to the direct intervention of God as described in Genesis. Hence the biological compatibility between the two sets of DNA. Once the two populations had separated after a period of interbreeding then Matter could change to follow Form.

The idea at least appears to create more problems than it solves.

Can you tell me which part of DNA changed in order to allow the presence of a soul? That would be a mighty discovery if it were possible.

rossum

 

[itinerant1]

I think Kant needs no help from me in undermining Maritain and Gilson, et al, but that wasn’t really my angle there. Kant’s ideas on noumena are problematic in their own right, but sufficient for the scaffolds of arguments that undermines classical and scholastic metaphysics.

-TS

It’s difficult to see why anybody takes Kant seriously, one who was woken from his dogmatic slumbers by Hume’s skepticism only to trapped in his own version of solipsism. One of the most colossal errors made repeatedly in the history of philosophy is the assumption that critical reflection on knowledge is the first step in philosophy.

Kant failed to see what was most elementary and fundamental: that criticism presupposes knowledge.

 

[itinerant1]

Agreed, which is why I introduced the suggestion of “huma” instead - almost, but not quite, human.

Are you denying transubstantiation? In that case the Form is very different from the Matter due to the direct intervention of God.

Transubstantiation was a poor choice on your part, since it involves a number of miracles. More than form is changed. Substance is changed, which is why it is called trans-substantiation.

What I am proposing is that initially the only difference was in the Form with no change in the Matter, again due to the direct intervention of God as described in Genesis. Hence the biological compatibility between the two sets of DNA. Once the two populations had separated after a period of interbreeding then Matter could change to follow Form.

If your two types are not reproductively isolated and continued to interbreed what type would be the offspring? And would not this be a case of primal bestiality? No wonder they got kicked out of the Garden! LOL

Can you tell me which part of DNA changed in order to allow the presence of a soul? That would be a mighty discovery if it were possible.

rossum

I guess it would be a great discovery. Actually, your basic idea is interesting. But I must play the devil’s advocate and challenge you to think it out.

 

[rossum]

Transubstantiation was a poor choice on your part, since it involves a number of miracles. More than form is changed. Substance is changed, which is why it is called trans-substantiation.

Thanks for the correction. I am not at my best on Thomist philosophy.

If your two types are not reproductively isolated and continued to interbreed what type would be the offspring?

Biologically there is only one type since in material terms they are the same species. Whether they are different in theological terms depends on whether or not the offspring have souls. AIUI, souls are directly implanted by God into each new human:36. For these reasons 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, on the part of men experienced in both fields, 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 – for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.

• Humani Generis
  If we accept that God decided to give a human soul to each huma/human hybrid then all the hybrids would be fully human, both biologically and theologically.

Once there were enough humans to make a viable breeding population, on current evidence between 1,000 and 10,000 breeding pairs, then the population of humans could move away from the population of huma and become a separate species, or else the huma went extinct. If all the hybrids were human then extinction is a distinct possibility.

And would not this be a case of primal bestiality?

Currently bestiality is not open to the creation of life, and the Catholic church is against all sexual acts that are not open to the creation of life. However, because of the biological similarity, sexual acts between humans and huma were open to the creation of life and hence it is not unreasonable to treat them differently from such acts that are not so open. This suggestion solves the problem of where Mrs Cain and Mrs Seth came from without resorting to incest. It also correlates well to the genetic evidence on population sizes.

No wonder they got kicked out of the Garden!

Unfortunately these events would have been after the garden; the huma first appear as Mrs Cain and Mrs Seth. There is no requirement for the huma to enter the garden.

Actually, your basic idea is interesting. But I must play the devil’s advocate and challenge you to think it out.

Not a problem. Discussing it does indeed help to flesh it out.

rossum

 

[itinerant1]

Not a problem. Discussing it does indeed help to flesh it out.
rossum

Okay, it’s shaping up a bit.

First point: the stories of Adam’s descendants do not involve strict historical-time-line genealogical representations. The biblical writers were more relaxed and creative with their genealogies; no type “A” behavior, or neurotic obsession with details. So your theory does not have to square up with Hebrew genealogies.

Second point: After the Fall, man is left in a natural primitive state, and with the wounds to the soul caused by the loss of original justice. Morality was primitive. As we see in the OT the patriarch’s had multiple wives and a servant even to bear a child if the wife could not. Morality slowly progressed over many generations, just as did knowledge about God progressed from polytheism to monotheism. Revelation was progressive and not an all information at once action by God. This is leading to my point that matings or marriages between brothers and sisters and other close relatives would have been necessary and commonplace during the earliest stages of humanity.

Third point: This is based on my second point. Since related individuals married or mated the rate of increase of the primitive human population would have been a rapid geometrical increase thus reaching an effective population size in very few generations. You can figure the math easily. Just plug in numbers for the following scenario: If a couple has X number of children and those children “marry” and have x number offspring that inter-marry, and so on.