Why evolution doesnt matter.

[itinerant1]

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

I take the Noah story for a theological polemic against the Epic of Gilgamesh and similar Babylonian myths. The Noah polemic was then worked into a biblical chronology, and hence it is not necessary to understand the Noah story as involving a bottleneck, also.

See The Two-Edged Sword by Fr. John L. McKenzie.

 

[StAnastasia]

I take the Noah story for a theological polemic against the Epic of Gilgamesh and similar Babylonian myths. The Noah polemic was then worked into a biblical chronology, and hence it is not necessary to understand the Noah story as involving a bottleneck, also.

Agreed.

 

[itinerant1]

Agreed.

At least there some things we can agree on.

 

[hecd2]

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

So does that mean you’ve figured it all out and you’re ready to come back to our discussion?

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

This is one side of a discussion I had with Dennis Bonnette - Dennis is, by his own admission, no scientist, and I showed in the discussion why his scientific arguments are flawed. The scientific case leaves no room for a literal Adam and Eve. Did you catch my side of the argument at the time, or would you like me to repeat it here?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[warpspeedpetey]

So does that mean you’ve figured it all out and you’re ready to come back to our discussion?

This is one side of a discussion I had with Dennis Bonnette - Dennis is, by his own admission, no scientist, and I showed in the discussion why his scientific arguments are flawed. The scientific case leaves no room for a literal Adam and Eve. Did you catch my side of the argument at the time, or would you like me to repeat it here?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

i dont know that a genetic bottleneck of 2 people matters, Scripture talks about other humans at the time. we arent literalists, and this is exactly why evolution doesnt matter outside of biological exploration.

btw, do you care to take up the conversation again in regards to the evidence you have for a singularity, prior to the BB, got any yet?

 

[hecd2]

i dont know that a genetic bottleneck of 2 people matters, Scripture talks about other humans at the time. we arent literalists, and this is exactly why evolution doesnt matter outside of biological exploration.

I agree, but the point is that many others consider a bottleneck of two to be part of Catholic dogma. They quote, for example, section 37 of Humani Generis, or go to a lot of trouble to try (and fail) to show how the genetic evidence can be compatible with two sole parents. They state that the doctrine of Original Sin depends on a literal Adam and Eve. Many of these people (Dennis Bonnette, itinerant1, grannymh, and others) are thoughtful and sincere. So I agree with you that the insight of Genesis can survive the acceptance of polygenism (in the Church’s sense), but I don’t think your view is universally accepted by all or even most thoughtful Catholics.

btw, do you care to take up the conversation again in regards to the evidence you have for a singularity, prior to the BB, got any yet?

My memory isn’t what it was, but I doubt that I ever argued for a necessary singularity at or immediately prior to Big Bang. Seems to me that almost everything you have posted since that thread is well considered, but that the idea that you could prove atheism irrational with Big Bang theory is about as quacking an idea as one could come up with. Sure you want to go there again?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[jkiernan56]

They state that the doctrine of Original Sin depends on a literal Adam and Eve.

Is there anyone here who is knowledgable who can comment on what is the Catholic Church’s position on this particular issue? I’m not sure if what has been stated is correct.

 

[edwest2]

Is there anyone here who is knowledgable who can comment on what is the Catholic Church’s position on this particular issue? I’m not sure if what has been stated is correct.

This link is from the Library of this site. Please look under the heading Adam and Eve: Real People.

catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

Peace,
Ed

 

[jkiernan56]

This link is from the Library of this site. Please look under the heading Adam and Eve: Real People.

catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

Peace,
Ed

Where in the Bible does it mention that other people lived at the time of Adam and Eve as some have asserted as fact? I think that didn’t come up until the story of Cain and Abel.

Cain and Abel were children of Adam and Eve if taken literally. In Genesis 4:15 it says

**"But the LORD said to him, “Not so [e] ; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over.” Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. **

Why would he need a mark if these were the Why are there other people who might harm Cain if they are the first descendants of Adam and Eve? This is the first time the Bible seems to indicate that other people lived at the time of Cain and Abel. But that doesn’t make sense if Cain and Abel were the children of Adam and Eve.

Anyone care to comment?

 

[grannymh]

I agree, but the point is that many others consider a bottleneck of two to be part of Catholic dogma. They quote, for example, section 37 of Humani Generis, or go to a lot of trouble to try (and fail) to show how the genetic evidence can be compatible with two sole parents. They state that the doctrine of Original Sin depends on a literal Adam and Eve. Many of these people (Dennis Bonnette, itinerant1, grannymh, and others) are thoughtful and sincere. So I agree with you that the insight of Genesis can survive the acceptance of polygenism (in the Church’s sense), but I don’t think your view is universally accepted by all or even most thoughtful Catholics.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

May I make a tiny correction to your above comments. A bottleneck of any kind belongs in the realm of science and is not connected with Catholic dogma. The Catholic teaching is that two true humans, Mr. and Mrs. John Doe or Adam and Eve or whatever names they called themselves, are the sole parents of the human race.

Regarding genetic evidence, I have just begun reading “The Myth of Eve: Molecular Biology and Human Origins” by Francisco J. Ayala, Science,Vol. 270, 22 December 1995. Obviously, its information is beyond my comprehension so I look for time estimates, probabilities from overdominant selection, inferences about past events on the basis of current observations, and anything else which will help me understand the context of the research.

Questions need to be asked about possibilities, uncertainties, and controversies mentioned in the paper. This is an interesting out of context comment referring to the history of human populations and the ancestry of individual genes. “Even so, there seems to be no definitive reason to exclude the possibility that different genes may have different populational origins. The average distances would then reflect…”

Ayala’s closing sentence is most interesting: “The current blossoming of molecular evolutionary anthropology surely will soon provide more definitive answers.” In this sense, Ayala is realistic about possibilities.

In my humble opinion, genetic evidence should not be seen in isolation from its context and from converging evidence from other specialties. It should be viewed as a piece of the larger puzzle. Hopefully, my position will not be seen as attacking scientific research but rather as a position of understanding how possibilities can be proposed.

Blessings,
granny

The quest is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[grannymh]

Is there anyone here who is knowledgable who can comment on what is the Catholic Church’s position on this particular issue? I’m not sure if what has been stated is correct.

There are a number of paragraphs devoted to this issue in the Catechism.
www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[itinerant1]

I agree, but the point is that many others consider a bottleneck of two to be part of Catholic dogma.
evolutionpages.com

Howdy,

Just a correction on the expression above. Catholic belief asserts a literal, original primal pair of human parents. We use the names Adam and Eve to designate those individuals. The bottleneck idea is not a part of Catholic dogma. The theological doctrine existed before the science of genetics and evolution theory. A “bottleneck” is considered to be the scientific implication of a literal Adam and Eve. But it is not part of the doctrine itself, which asserts nothing about the subject of a bottleneck.

 

[hecd2]

May I make a tiny correction to your above comments. A bottleneck of any kind belongs in the realm of science and is not connected with Catholic dogma. The Catholic teaching is that two true humans, Mr. and Mrs. John Doe or Adam and Eve or whatever names they called themselves, are the sole parents of the human race.

Don’t see how that is different from a bottleneck of two in the genetic lineage of extant humans.

Ayala’s closing sentence is most interesting: “The current blossoming of molecular evolutionary anthropology surely will soon provide more definitive answers.” In this sense, Ayala is realistic about possibilities.

Sure, and since 1995 a lot of work on palaeodemography has been done and it is all consistent with excluding a bottleneck of two in the human lineage.

In my humble opinion, genetic evidence should not be seen in isolation from its context and from converging evidence from other specialties. It should be viewed as a piece of the larger puzzle.

Quite so - but what other disciplines would they be and what evidence do they put forward against the conclusions of genetics in this case?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

Howdy,

Just a correction on the expression above. Catholic belief asserts a literal, original primal pair of human parents. We use the names Adam and Eve to designate those individuals. The bottleneck idea is not a part of Catholic dogma. The theological doctrine existed before the science of genetics and evolution theory. A “bottleneck” is considered to be the scientific implication of a literal Adam and Eve. But it is not part of the doctrine itself, which asserts nothing about the subject of a bottleneck.

Howdy,

I agree that a bottleneck per se is not part of Catholic doctrine, but you and others consider a sole pair of parents to be doctrine and in the context of human evolution, a literal pair of human parents (sole parents according to Humani Generis) can only be realised by a bottleneck of two in the genetic lineage of extant humans. The concepts amount to the same thing for those who accept the evolution of humans.

Of course, a Catholic can reject the implications of scientific findings regarding human origins altogether, but for a thinking educated Catholic and for a Church that does not want to dissociate itself from science…

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[grannymh]

Sure, and since 1995 a lot of work on palaeodemography has been done and it is all consistent with excluding a bottleneck of two in the human lineage.

Even though my reading of abstracts is not as extensive as yours, I am not seeing an intention or goal of excluding a bottleneck of two in the human lineage consistently in every paper.

In fact, my introduction to demography was in a paper which included the gathering of a variety of influences on ancient populations so that they could be translated into mathematical formulas for computer models. The initial scope of that section was first gathering data. Doing a bit of research on one of the researchers, I would say that her intentions or goals were far broader that a narrow bottleneck.

Quite so - but what other disciplines would they be and what evidence do they put forward against the conclusions of genetics in this case?
Alec
evolutionpages.com

This reminds me that I need a better dictionary with more entries from the scientific sector. Recommendations? Nonetheless, you have a good point which basically means that I should include the area of expertise of the researchers in my own data file.

Regarding your question about the evidence put forward against the conclusions of genetics – At this point, I can better serve scientific inquiry by searching for the proper perspective of these conclusions.

In his research paper, “The Myth of Eve: Molecular Biology and Human Origins” Francisco J. Ayala opens his “Population Bottlenecks” section with: “Neither the mtDNA results nor the ZFY results lead to the conclusion that narrow population bottlenecks consisting of one or very few couples have occurred in human ancestral history.” Ayala is often cited in the footnotes of research papers. Consequently, there is the strong possibility that his studies of mtDNA and ZFY are accurate.

The question which needs to be answered is: What in the harsh environment of early earth or in the full nature of the human being influences the material elements of mtDNA and ZFY? As matter, mtDNA and ZFY would be under the influences of various evolutionary theories.

It seems to me that evolution of material beings includes all kinds of possibilities for mutations, i.e., changes do occur because of this or that. Having read only a small portion of the theories regarding some kind of “junk” in genetic make-up (my apology for not using correct terminology), it is obvious that not everything is certainty regarding relationships within cell structures etc.

The following sentence by Ayala is taken out of context. As the paper progresses, Ayala deals with the possibilities involved. However, I present it because it is the scientific recognition of the complexity of research. “As noted earlier, estimates of mean coalescence time as a function of N, and vice versa, have large variances.”

All of us, especially myself, like to cherry pick when it comes to reading research. My point is that there is a definite need to recognize the complexity of research regarding the human species. Most people have a gut instinct that there is something essentially different about the human species. The question remains: How does that complex difference, whether it is looked at as degrees or as kind, influence the origin of humanity?

Blessings,
granny

All human life, from pre-history to tomorrow, is worthy of profound respect.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Science is brought here to comment on theology constantly.Peace,
Ed

Why is that relevant? Why didn’t you focus on the other points i made in my post? Or perhaps you are going to say that i didn’t make any good points?

Kenneth Miller has discredited himself in Finding Darwin’s God in that his writing does not reflect Church teaching.Peace,
Ed

Prove it. Show me one document were the Pope has officially said that his book is irreconcilably false, as in to say heretical. I am not just talking about somebodies opinion.

to prove: "Your Bible is wrong, here, here and here, according to science."Peace,
Ed

What are you talking about? When have I ever said that?

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

Well…Have you found one?

 

[MindOverMatter]

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.

Can you please respond to the rest of my post, as i think its fair to say that it did contain a large portion of my own view which had nothing to do with Miller. Then we will talk about Millers so called heretical book and his secret agenda to brainwash Catholic Church Members with the theory of Evolution. If you are right about Miller, then fair enough, but that doesn’t make me wrong about evolution. In fact, when i really think about it, i don’t see any irreconcilable points in the quotes that you made; i think its consistent with a God that is not obliged to create people. Although, i can see how somebody with a superficial understanding of science or theology might make the mistake of thinking that it is heretical.

 

[itinerant1]

Howdy,

I agree that a bottleneck per se is not part of Catholic doctrine, but you and others consider a sole pair of parents to be doctrine and in the context of human evolution, a literal pair of human parents (sole parents according to Humani Generis) can only be realised by a bottleneck of two in the genetic lineage of extant humans. The concepts amount to the same thing for those who accept the evolution of humans.

Of course, a Catholic can reject the implications of scientific findings regarding human origins altogether, but for a thinking educated Catholic and for a Church that does not want to dissociate itself from science…

Alec
evolutionpages.com

It’s not a matter of some grand disassociation from science. The history of science has taught me that scientists are not infallible. So, I am taking a considered watch and see position on the genetics question and subsequent scientific developments.

The interpretation of the current evidence is against a bottleneck. I certainly can’t argue against that. However, I have good extra-scientific reasons for maintaining that it is not the last word on the subject. That’s where I stand, come hell of high water, like it or not. I choose to play the part of the fool on this one issue.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I agree, but the point is that many others consider a bottleneck of two to be part of Catholic dogma. They quote, for example, section 37 of Humani Generis, or go to a lot of trouble to try (and fail) to show how the genetic evidence can be compatible with two sole parents. They state that the doctrine of Original Sin depends on a literal Adam and Eve. Many of these people (Dennis Bonnette, itinerant1, grannymh, and others) are thoughtful and sincere. So I agree with you that the insight of Genesis can survive the acceptance of polygenism (in the Church’s sense), but I don’t think your view is universally accepted by all or even most thoughtful Catholics.

then i am mistaken. there is indeed a literal Adam and Eve. do you have proof that it could not possibly be so?

My memory isn’t what it was, but I doubt that I ever argued for a necessary singularity at or immediately prior to Big Bang. Seems to me that almost everything you have posted since that thread is well considered, but that the idea that you could prove atheism irrational with Big Bang theory is about as quacking an idea as one could come up with. Sure you want to go there again?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

you participated in the conversation. the BB doesnt explain the existence of the universe. its a poor basis for anyones atheism.

 

[reggieM]

Can you please respond to the rest of my post, as i think its fair to say that it did contain a large portion of my own view which had nothing to do with Miller. Then we will talk about Millers so called heretical book and his secret agenda to brainwash Catholic Church Members with the theory of Evolution. If you are right about Miller, then fair enough, but that doesn’t make me wrong about evolution. In fact, when i really think about it, i don’t see any irreconcilable points in the quotes that you made; i think its consistent with a God that is not obliged to create people. Although, i can see how somebody with a superficial understanding of science or theology might make the mistake of thinking that it is heretical.

Let’s try again. You’re willing to deny God’s omniscience and Divine providence in order to support Miller’s completely unfounded theological view (completely at odds with the teaching of the Church). Again, God is omniscient. Nothing can happen without his knowledge or will.

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]

This is obviously and completely false. Again, he says that mankind was not pre-ordained by God, but that human beings arose by an accident (that God was not involved in, that God was not aware of, that God did not direct). This denies the direct creation of man by God – it denies the *de fide *teaching that every human soul is created directly by God. He claims that man was an accident – happening without God willing or intending it.

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

Again, Miller claims that God only knew that some kind of creature would be created – but He didn’t know that man would emerge. This is not only heretical, it is blasphemous. Miller believes in an ignorant god. This is not the true God – all-knowing, all-powerful, possessing all perfections. It is an ignorant god that didn’t know what evolution would produce. The worship of a false god is idolatry. And that’s what we have here.

We can take a look at this quote from Miller’s biology textbook:

“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.)