Why evolution doesnt matter.

[MindOverMatter]

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
**

I haven’t got a problem with 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.
​

I agree.

It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution,

I agree.

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.

Interpretation is important. When the Pope rebukes “materialism”, it is important to understand that this doesn’t and cannot mean that he is against the idea of a “natural world” that **organizes itself **according to the “principles of its given nature”. This is all that the theory of evolution proves, if it proves anything. If i am not mistaken, the Pope also said that there is no problem with the body being formed by evolutionary processes, so long that it is God that creates the soul. Materialism is the belief that the physical world exists of its own accord and is the giver of its own principles. That is not the theory of Evolution, and i am sorry to say that you are either deceived or a liar if you claim that it is. Personally i think you have been deceived.

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.

Mainstream evolutionary theory, as in the theory of evolution as empirical science has discovered it, is not materialistic and atheistic. You are reading into the the theory a materialistic veiw point that isn’t really there. You interpreted the theory according to what people like Richard Dawkins has said it is; and it seems that you have uncritically agreed with him. Its like believing that cosmology and physics is false just because Stephen Hawkins has the opinion that the universe explains its own existence. Some scientists unfortunately mix their world views with their theories; but this doesn’t determine the truth or falsity of a given theory.

The Holy See might permit some kind of theistic evolution but that is almost nowhere supported in current science today.

I am sorry, but this is quite simply false if what you mean is that mainstream science makes claims to materialism, and that therefore we must have our own theory. Science does no such thing. There are scientists who believe in materialism, but this is irrelevant when deciding what it is that Evolution is actually teaching. The Holy See does permit The Theory Evolution. They just reject the **philosophical **theories that has been attached to the theory. To say that the Pope accepts only “theistic evolution”, only makes sense in the respect that the Pope rebukes “materialism”. However, from a scientific point of view, there is no such thing as “theistic evolution”; there is just evolution, and it would be incorrect to employ theistic language when studying the “natural order”. There is the “scientific” theory of evolution, and then there is the religious and philosophical beliefs about what constitutes the ultimate reality of things. The Pope is speaking from the position of his world view; but if he were to talk as a scientist, he would not say “theistic evolution”, he would just say the “theory of evolution”. He would not say anything about God as a professional scientists when facing the public; but if he were to be asked what his philosophical or theological beliefs are, he would speak about God from the position of his personal belief, philosophically and theologically, in which case he would no-longer be speaking as a scientists. Science is not the study of the supernatural; it is the study of the natural world.

The Pope either accepts the scientific theory of Evolution, or he doesn’t.

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”.

This is not true. I accused him of failing to understand what science is teaching; and therefore adding to a greater deception which portrays the view that science is at war with religion, and he does this by arguing against a theory that has nothing to say about whether or not there is providence. If he was just attacking materialism, i would have nothing to say. But this is not what is happening. I have explained to him that the theory of evolution is not in principle against belief in God or materialistic, and yet he still desires to portray the theory in a light that is not true. There is no excuses. Why don’t you read Kenneth R Millers book “Finding Darwins God”.​

 

[itinerant1]

Mainstream evolutionary theory, as in the theory of evolution as empirical science has discovered it, is not materialistic and atheistic. You are reading into the the theory a materialistic veiw point that isn’t really there. You interpreted the theory according to what people like Richard Dawkins has said it is; and it seems that you have uncritically agreed with him. Its like believing that cosmology and physics is false just because Stephen Hawkins has the opinion that the universe explains its own existence. Some scientists unfortunately mix their world views with their theories; but this doesn’t determine the truth or falsity of a given theory.

This is not true. I accused him of failing to understand what science is teaching; and therefore adding to a greater deception which portrays the view that science is at war with religion, and he does this by arguing against a theory that has nothing to say about whether or not there is providence. If he was just attacking materialism, i would have nothing to say. But this is not what is happening. I have explained to him that the theory of evolution is not in principle against belief in God or materialistic, and yet he still desires to portray the theory in a light that is not true. There is no excuses. Why don’t you read Kenneth R Millers book “Finding Darwins God”.

I agree. Pope John Paul and Benedict have spoken against materialist evolution. The materialism in question is a metaphysical or philosophical materialism that asserts matter is the only reality we can know or that exists.

But then, and strange enough, ID supporters on CAF often object to scientists who observe methodological materialism or naturalism. On the other hand, they complain if an evolutionist mixes philosophical naturalism with his scientific explanation. ID supporters radically contradict themselves. Furthermore, they also contradict themselves with ID theory itself, which mixes philosophical and theological notions with their so-called science.

In fact, Phillip Johnson, the catalyst of the ID movement specifically thinks that science should include philosophical and theological explanations in scientific theory. Go figure!

I have challenged ReggieM to support his assertion that evolutionary theory mixes ideology with its science, that is, an ideology he claims that cannot be separated from the science. He refused to answer, and just continues making the same false claims about science.

The truth is that ID theorists are the ones who cannot uncouple their ideology from their so-called science. There is no such thing as an ideology free ID-ology. But there is evolution science that is just science. At some point we have to say ID supporters are not being intellectually honest.

 

[itinerant1]

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.

rossum,

An afterthought. I said “geometrical increase”. I meant to say “exponential increase”, or “really darn fast increase”. What this may mean for your hypothesis it that there is no need to assume interbreeding of the two kinds of humans (assuming for the sake of argument that there could be such a thing).

 

[edwest2]

I haven’t got a problem with this.

I agree.

I agree.

Interpretation is important. When the Pope rebukes “materialism”, it is important to understand that this doesn’t and cannot mean that he is against the idea of a “natural world” that **organizes itself **according to the “principles of its given nature”. This is all that the theory of evolution proves, if it proves anything. If i am not mistaken, the Pope also said that there is no problem with the body being formed by evolutionary processes, so long that it is God that creates the soul. Materialism is the belief that the physical world exists of its own accord and is the giver of its own principles. That is not the theory of Evolution, and i am sorry to say that you are either deceived or a liar if you claim that it is. Personally i think you have been deceived.

Mainstream evolutionary theory, as in the theory of evolution as empirical science has discovered it, is not materialistic and atheistic. You are reading into the the theory a materialistic veiw point that isn’t really there. You interpreted the theory according to what people like Richard Dawkins has said it is; and it seems that you have uncritically agreed with him. Its like believing that cosmology and physics is false just because Stephen Hawkins has the opinion that the universe explains its own existence. Some scientists unfortunately mix their world views with their theories; but this doesn’t determine the truth or falsity of a given theory.

I am sorry, but this is quite simply false if what you mean is that mainstream science makes claims to materialism, and that therefore we must have our own theory. Science does no such thing. There are scientists who believe in materialism, but this is irrelevant when deciding what it is that Evolution is actually teaching. The Holy See does permit The Theory Evolution. They just reject the **philosophical **theories that has been attached to the theory. To say that the Pope accepts only “theistic evolution”, only makes sense in the respect that the Pope rebukes “materialism”. However, from a scientific point of view, there is no such thing as “theistic evolution”; there is just evolution, and it would be incorrect to employ theistic language when studying the “natural order”. There is the “scientific” theory of evolution, and then there is the religious and philosophical beliefs about what constitutes the ultimate reality of things. The Pope is speaking from the position of his world view; but if he were to talk as a scientist, he would not say “theistic evolution”, he would just say the “theory of evolution”. He would not say anything about God as a professional scientists when facing the public; but if he were to be asked what his philosophical or theological beliefs are, he would speak about God from the position of his personal belief, philosophically and theologically, in which case he would no-longer be speaking as a scientists. Science is not the study of the supernatural; it is the study of the natural world.

The Pope either accepts the scientific theory of Evolution, or he doesn’t.

This is not true. I accused him of failing to understand what science is teaching; and therefore adding to a greater deception which portrays the view that science is at war with religion, and he does this by arguing against a theory that has nothing to say about whether or not there is providence. If he was just attacking materialism, i would have nothing to say. But this is not what is happening. I have explained to him that the theory of evolution is not in principle against belief in God or materialistic, and yet he still desires to portray the theory in a light that is not true. There is no excuses. Why don’t you read Kenneth R Millers book “Finding Darwins God”.

Science is brought here to comment on theology constantly. The evidence is plain in almost every thread related to evolution. Kenneth Miller has discredited himself in Finding Darwin’s God in that his writing does not reflect Church teaching. What many posters do here, constantly, is use “a theory that has nothing to say about whether or not there is providence.” to prove: “Your Bible is wrong, here, here and here, according to science.” So unless you can produce a scientific, peer reviewed paper analyzing the validity of the claims made in Genesis, I suggest you realize what you are doing.

Peace,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

One of the problems that the original question and response (that evolution doesn’t matter because we already have proofs of God by causality) is that the classical proofs for the existence of God, either Thomist or through other philosophical schools are arguments for the existence of a certain kind of god which is basically the god of the Deist position.

From wikipedia:

Deism is a religious and philosophical belief that a supreme being created the universe, and that this (and religious truth in general) can be determined using reason and observation of the natural world alone, without a need for either faith or organized religion.

This is as far as arguments from causality can bring us. From reason and philosophical arguments, one can recognize that a supreme being exists.

But obviously, this proof does not end the need for further apologetics from the Catholic point of view. The Deist-god is not God of the Blessed Trinity. It is not Jesus Christ, true-God and true man.

Additionally, the first cause and “lawgiver” may not have any intervention in nature at all. But this idea would contradict Catholicism also.

So, evolution is an important challenge. That is why the Holy See warns against “several theories of evolution” for the reasons I gave.

 

[reggieM]

Why don’t you read Kenneth R Millers book “Finding Darwins God”.

Because, as I think I’ve explained to you before, I consider Mr. Miller to be a heretic and a false-Catholic, so I’m not going to waste my time with him.

And biologist Kenneth Miller of Brown University, author of the popular book Finding Darwin’s God (which is used in many Christian colleges), insists that evolution is an undirected process, flatly denying that God guided the evolutionary process to achieve any particular result—including the development of human beings. Indeed, Miller insists that “mankind’s appearance on this planet was not preordained, that we are here… as an afterthought, a minor detail, a happenstance in a history that might just as well have left us out.” [Finding Darwin’s God (1999), p. 272]

Miller does say that God knew that the undirected process of evolution was so wonderful it would create some sort of rational creature capable of praising Him eventually. But what that something would be was radically undetermined. How undetermined? At a 2007 conference, Miller admitted that evolution could have produced “a big-brained dinosaur” or a “mollusk with exceptional mental capabilities” rather than human beings. [Quoted in Darwin Day, p. 226]
discovery.org/a/10121

Mr. Miller’s stated views are consistent with evolutionary theory, but they contradict the teachings of the Catholic faith.

As Pope Benedict teaches – in contradiction to Miller’s errors:

“We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Eash of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary.”

So, when you talk about “adding to a greater deception”, you might want to think about your own promotion of a book and an author whose teaching is contrary to that of the Catholic Faith.

 

[jkiernan56]

As Pope Benedict teaches – in contradiction to Miller’s errors:

“We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Eash of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary.”

I for one would like to understand better the context of what Pope Benedict meant when he stated each of us “is necessary”. Whether I agree with this statement depends on the context of the statement. The context in his statement is not clear.

I do know for fact that only “God has to exist.” Nothing else “need” exist - period. God did not NEED or have to create the Universe. God could have continued in BEING for all eternity without creating anything or anyone. It was God’s choice to create the world, but not in the context of a need as if God lacked something.

Over 30 years ago I had an ontological experience of God and of myself. I realized I did not have to exist and that the only reason I existed was because God willed it. Simply put - He chose me. I know I was wanted and loved by God. God has chosen each one of us. He has called each one of us “by name”. I wholeheartedly agree with Pope Benedict that each one of willed by God. No “person” is an “accident” of nature.

Now when you said that the Pope said that “each of us is necessary”, that would only be true in the context to the Body of Christ. Each of us is meant and “necessary” for a particular place and function in the Body of Christ - a place where only your or I can supply what is needed and wanted by God for the Body of Christ - ie: for others and others for us. Just as every note in a beautiful symphony is “necessary”, so also each person willed by God is “necessary” for the Body of Christ.

How God actually accomplished the human race is an interesting subject. But ultimately it doesn’t matter in the big picture. God has created and redeemed us to be His adopted sons and daughters - a share in the relationship the eternal Son has always had with the Father.

At some point in history, God purposely “breathed into man” a living spirit.

Genesis 2:7 states “Yahweh God shaped man from the soil of the ground and blew the breath of life into his nostrils, and man became a living being.” Whether man descended from animal or not, misses the whole point. The point I believe the Pope was trying to underscore is that each of us is directly wanted and willed by God - and necessary for the Body of Christ. Take that “one note” out of the music or "one instrument: out of the orchestra, then it is lacking in some perfection or beauty. Each one of us is “necessary” for the beauty of the Bride of Christ.

I don’t understand though how souls who end up in hell were “necessary”. Didn’t God purposely intend each one of them as well? Yes. Weren’t each one of them “necessary” for the Body of Christ? I would again say Yes. If then they are in hell, how could they have been “necessary” for the Body of Christ? That makes no sense to me. It is like a “necessary” brick missing in a wall to me. God’s intention is the same for every person He has ever created or will create. How then were they “necessary” for the Body of Christ, if they end up in hell eternally separated from God? A mystery to me …

 

[reggieM]

The Pope is not saying that it was necessary for God to create the person, but rather, that once God willed that the person be created – the person is necessary in the eyes of God; he is part of God’s divine plan and is needed by God in His love for each person.

Now when you said that the Pope said that “each of us is necessary”, that would only be true in the context to the Body of Christ. Each of us is meant and “necessary” for a particular place and function in the Body of Christ - a place where only your or I can supply what is needed and wanted by God for the Body of Christ - ie: for others and others for us. Just as every note in a beautiful symphony is “necessary”, so also each person willed by God is “necessary” for the Body of Christ.

Yes, that’s an excellent point – we are necessary to make up the Body of Christ. But even those outside of the Body are necessary for fulfilling God’s plan for the world.

I don’t understand though how souls who end up in hell were “necessary”. Didn’t God purposely intend each one of them as well? Yes. Weren’t each one of them “necessary” for the Body of Christ? I would again say Yes. If then they are in hell, how could they have been “necessary” for the Body of Christ? That makes no sense to me. It is like a “necessary” brick missing in a wall to me. God’s intention is the same for every person He has ever created or will create. How then were they “necessary” for the Body of Christ, if they end up in hell eternally separated from God? A mystery to me …

Yes, God loves each one of those souls who are damned by their own choice. God gave the invitation to each of them – and they refused it. But they remain necessary because they are an expression of God’s justice and truth. Not like a brick missing in a wall, but like moments of silence in a piece of music - providing contrast. Or a painting that includes darkness and light. The Body of Christ suffered for all of his people. But there would be no heaven if there was no possiblity of hell. Because by making free choices of love for God – we can choose to be a part of the Body of Christ. But, we can also choose to reject Christ.

God honors our freedom and our serious choices – either for Him or against Him.

Many have not wanted to love God at all. No matter how many warnings and reminders they are given – they choose freely to go their own way.

These souls remain necessary in God’s plan – to show the goodness of God and His justice in honoring the decision of those who did not want to go to heaven to be with Him.

 

[jkiernan56]

Deleted.

 

[StAnastasia]

That goes against every fiber in my being both in my understanding and experience of God…God did not create “some” for hell to fulfill His plan. I really hope that is not what you meant that some souls were “necessary” to go to hell to fulfill God’s plan. I do not believe for one second it was “necessary” for anyone to go to hell, nor was it God’s intention that they do so.

This is a Protestant view dragged into Catholicism by some “Tiber swimmers.” I wouldn’t sweat it if I were you.

 

[jkiernan56]

This is a Protestant view dragged into Catholicism by some “Tiber swimmers.” I wouldn’t sweat it if I were you.

I think it is more like I misunderstood what the person was saying. I replied the way I did as a knee jerk reaction without having read ALL of their post. After I posted my response, I then went on to read the rest of what the other person wrote. And it is clear to me they did not say God intended anyone to go to hell - as if this was necessary to fulfill God’s plan. What they said was that the ‘possibility of hell’ had to exist as a condition of free will, not that God intended anyone to go there. It was a misunderstanding on my part. They were not espousing a Protestant view point in my opinion.

 

[StAnastasia]

I think it is more like I misunderstood what the person was saying. I replied the way I did as a knee jerk reaction without having read ALL of their post. After I posted my response, I then went on to read the rest of what the other person wrote. And it is clear to me they did not say God intended anyone to go to hell - as if this was necessary to fulfill God’s plan. What they said was that the ‘possibility of hell’ had to exist as a condition of free will, not that God intended anyone to go there. It was a misunderstanding on my part. They were not espousing a Protestant view point in my opinion.

If you say so. Thanks.

 

[rossum]

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.

I am trying to keep my idea as close as possible to Genesis as I can, without straying outside what science tells us. Including Mrs Seth is not a problem, since Adam’s children had to mate with someone.

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.

A small population is ruled out by science. There are too many variants of genes (alleles) in the modern human population for such a small population. We share some alleles with chimps so we can extrapolate back to when our ancestors separated from chimps’ ancestors. The lowest estimate I have seen of the population since that separation is 1,000 breeding pairs, with most estimates coming in closer to 10,000 breeding pairs. That is why I introduced the huma - to carry the extra alleles beyond the maximum of four that Adam and Eve could have had between them. Some human genes have hundreds of alleles, many of which are shared with chimps.

We know the mutation rates that give us new alleles and population genetics tells us how quickly those new alleles can spread through the population. Using all that we can be certain that the biological population has never been as low as two since we separated from the chimps.

As a contrast you might also want to look at the genetics of cheetahs, who did have a severe genetic bottleneck about 10,000 years ago. Possibly down to a single family. It is possible to do skin transplants between cheetahs without rejection because they are all still so closely related.

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.

My point is based on numbers of alleles, not on population sizes. However I would be wary of such population size calculations since actual population figures do not follow a smooth mathematical curve. For most of early human history the population has been roughly constant. A major disaster, such as Toba or the Black Death can reduce the population. The exponential growth we have seen recently is mostly due to modern medicine reducing infant/child mortality rates. James I of England had seven children, of whom only three survived infancy, and presumably those children got the best care money could buy. Even then, one of the three (Prince Henry) died at 18 of a fever.

rossum

 

[itinerant1]

As a contrast you might also want to look at the genetics of cheetahs, who did have a severe genetic bottleneck about 10,000 years ago. Possibly down to a single family. It is possible to do skin transplants between cheetahs without rejection because they are all still so closely related.

I’ll check out the cheetahs.

What do you think about this discussion: On the Difficulty of Reconciling Science and Faith

 

[itinerant1]

A small population is ruled out by science. There are too many variants of genes (alleles) in the modern human population for such a small population.
rossum

Maybe, maybe not. For the record, I’m going with a bottleneck and a literal Adam and Eve. Genesis rocks!

Confer Does Science Allow for a Literal Adam and Eve?
See especially section III.

 

[rossum]

Maybe, maybe not. For the record, I’m going with a bottleneck and a literal Adam and Eve. Genesis rocks!

Confer Does Science Allow for a Literal Adam and Eve?
See especially section III.

Section III is interesting. To me it seems obvious, even from that piece, that the scientific consensus is for a larger bottleneck than two. One thing that is not in that piece is our shared alleles with the chimps. We share a lot of our genes with the chimps, and we also share a lot of our alleles. Since an individual can carry a maximum of two alleles then Adam and Eve could have carried a maximum of four alleles between them from their ancestors. There are genes where we share many more than four alleles with chimps. Either the same alleles have evolved and spread separately in both lineages or the alleles were inherited from a common ancestor through a population larger than two. The chances of the same alleles evolving and spreading separately in two lineages are very small indeed. That possibility can only explain a tiny proportion of what we observe.

rossum

 

[reggieM]

I think it is more like I misunderstood what the person was saying. I replied the way I did as a knee jerk reaction without having read ALL of their post. After I posted my response, I then went on to read the rest of what the other person wrote. And it is clear to me they did not say God intended anyone to go to hell - as if this was necessary to fulfill God’s plan. What they said was that the ‘possibility of hell’ had to exist as a condition of free will, not that God intended anyone to go there. It was a misunderstanding on my part. They were not espousing a Protestant view point in my opinion.

Thanks, jkiernan. That’s right – I didn’t say and I would never say that God intended anyone to go to Hell. On the contrary, God desires that every one of his creatures be saved from that. But as you said, “the possibility of hell” has to be necessary. Sadly, some choose it. I’ve even heard some people say that they want to go to hell. God tries everything possible to stop that, but He will not force people.

 

[edwest2]

Thanks, jkiernan. That’s right – I didn’t say and I would never say that God intended anyone to go to Hell. On the contrary, God desires that every one of his creatures be saved from that. But as you said, “the possibility of hell” has to be necessary. Sadly, some choose it. I’ve even heard some people say that they want to go to hell. God tries everything possible to stop that, but He will not force people.

I don’t think any of us can force someone to love them. God does not force us to love Him. And yes, Hell was made for those who reject Him, since He laid out His plan clearly for us. He is God, there are no others. Jesus told us that the Father does not wish for anyone to perish. When we take God literally, not as a symbol but as the Living God who will come to judge the living and the dead, we begin to see the truth. Too many go to Church, put in their hour, get in their cars and go home, living like Agnostics for the rest of the week. Jesus told us to do the things He told us to do. Faith without works is dead. The candlestick cannot be placed under a bushel. If we simply do the same as the publicans, what will we receive?

No one is irredeemable. But today is the day of salvation, not tomorrow.

And yes, some would rather rule in hell than serve in heaven (Milton).

Peace,
Ed

 

[itinerant1]

Section III is interesting. To me it seems obvious, even from that piece, that the scientific consensus is for a larger bottleneck than two. One thing that is not in that piece is our shared alleles with the chimps. We share a lot of our genes with the chimps, and we also share a lot of our alleles. Since an individual can carry a maximum of two alleles then Adam and Eve could have carried a maximum of four alleles between them from their ancestors. There are genes where we share many more than four alleles with chimps. Either the same alleles have evolved and spread separately in both lineages or the alleles were inherited from a common ancestor through a population larger than two. The chances of the same alleles evolving and spreading separately in two lineages are very small indeed. That possibility can only explain a tiny proportion of what we observe.

rossum

Interesting. I cannot argue for or against. I’m just taking notes and studying the issue.

 

[StAnastasia]

Section III is interesting. To me it seems obvious, even from that piece, that the scientific consensus is for a larger bottleneck than two. rossum

And that would have been twice: with Adam, and with Noah.