Theistic evolutionists: was Adam a specific person?

[sfs]

Papist, I pointed out in post #14 that the Catholic Church teaches that Adam and Eve were historical persons

Quite true, although there are well-positioned people within the Catholic church who would like to change that, e.g. Michael Guinan

 

[juvenissun]

Yes, it's quite possible to believe in a historical Adam and Eve and still accept the scientific conclusion that humans have always had a fairly large population.

How would that work according your mutation hypothesis?

One million chimps mutated toward human, how many would eventually make it? For those who made it, were they the same kind of human to start with?

(If they mutated randomly, but not "toward" human, it seems the chance of becoming one human species would be dismally small. If so, what do you mean by "fairly large population"?)

 

[justlookinla]

(If they mutated randomly, but not "toward" human, it seems the chance of becoming one human species would be dismally small.

And, God certainly didn't have a plan for creating mankind other than a roll of the dice.

 

[Rhamiel]

Quite true, although there are well-positioned people within the Catholic church who would like to change that, e.g. Michael Guinan

well I am glad that the Church preserves the orthodox faith handed down from the time of the Apostles and does not get lost in the vain innovations of man-made doctrines

 

[sfs]

well I am glad that the Church preserves the orthodox faith handed down from the time of the Apostles and does not get lost in the vain innovations of man-made doctrines

So am I, but I suspect we mean very different things by the statement.

 

[sfs]

How would that work according your mutation hypothesis?

One million chimps mutated toward human, how many would eventually make it? For those who made it, were they the same kind of human to start with?

(If they mutated randomly, but not "toward" human, it seems the chance of becoming one human species would be dismally small. If so, what do you mean by "fairly large population"?)

1) Humans did not evolve from chimps.
2) By "fairly large population" I mean at least a few thousand.
3) No members of a population "make it". They die, as all organisms do. Later generations of the entire population are different from earlier generations.
4) Interbreeding animals, like humans, remain one species because they continually exchange genes.

 

[Papias]

Rhamiel, thanks for the clear and honest answer.

You wrote:

I recognize Theistic Evolution as an acceptable position to be held

but after meeting several really holy Catholics who are believers in Creationism, I am now more favorable to that position ....

Understood. For the RCC position, here is a summary:

1. Humani Generis, an official papal encyclical by Pope Pious XII which allows evolution.
2. Interpretation of Humani Generis by Pope John Paul II, just in case anyone was unclear that Humani Generis allows for evolution.
3. The fact that evolution is openly taught by Catholic teachers to millions of Catholic students in Catholic Universities and Schools.
4. Confirmation of open support of evolution by the Vatican in a commissioned report chaired by Pope Emeritus Benedict, saying evolution of humans from earlier apes is "virtually certain".
5. Many of the most outspoken evolution supporters are Catholic, such as Ken Miller, Dr. Ayayla, etc.

Note that the list includes at least three popes, an official encyclical, a Vatican commission report, and the actions of thousands of Catholic officials doing their jobs, right now. In fact, the largest single organization in the whole world, doing the most teaching of evolution to the most people today, is the Catholic Church through its schools and universities.

You are also correct that accepting evolution is allowed (and encouraged), but not required.

so now basically I say I do not care
I know God made everything
if it was made in 7 days, or 4 billion years, does not really make any difference to me

Makes sense. I agree that it is not a salvation issue.

Best-

-Papias

 

[juvenissun]

1) Humans did not evolve from chimps.
2) By "fairly large population" I mean at least a few thousand.
3) No members of a population "make it". They die, as all organisms do. Later generations of the entire population are different from earlier generations.
4) Interbreeding animals, like humans, remain one species because they continually exchange genes.

Do you mean millions of "chimps" evolved into thousands of slightly different human species. Then those few thousands of human species interbred and merged into one human species of millions of individuals?

 

[juvenissun]

And, God certainly didn't have a plan for creating mankind other than a roll of the dice.

That is an over over simplified analogy.

 

[Papias]

Juvi wrote:

Originally Posted by sfs

Yes, it's quite possible to believe in a historical Adam and Eve and still accept the scientific conclusion that humans have always had a fairly large population.

How would that work according your mutation hypothesis?

Good question, since it is not easy for most people to imagine. The key is to think over many generations, remembering that mutations are spread due to reproduction and natural selection, and also remembering that one's number of descendants increases geometrically, which means that before too long, the entire population is descended from any given previous individual. This is explained step by step below.

One million chimps mutated toward human, how many would eventually make it? For those who made it, were they the same kind of human to start with?

Only one need "make it" (and it's not one step for the mutations anyway). That one will have kids, after all. If their many little mutational changes are beneficial, they will, on average, be selected for and soon be present in everyone in the whole population.

(If they mutated randomly, but not "toward" human, it seems the chance of becoming one human species would be dismally small. If so, what do you mean by "fairly large population"?)

My example will use a million in the population. In general, "fairly large" means, here, at least in the thousands.

Here is a step by step example:

Consider the hominid population that is evolving to be more and more human. It consists of all non-humans, each represented by an asterisk, below, with around a million individuals in the population:

Gen 1 ****************************************** (+ a million more or so)

Call that Generation 1 (Gen1)

Now, in Gen 2, A hominid is born whom God gives a soul. The mutational changes for bigger brains are happening too, and I don't know exactly what the brain size was when God created the first human soul. This person is the first human, Adam. Along with his human wife, Eve, generation 2 looks like this, with humans marked in blue :

Gen 2 ******************************************* (+ a million more or so)

Now, Adam and Eve have many kids, and each of them is human, has inherited original sin, and is marked in blue. Polygenism is avoided because only Adam and Eve are human, thus we are descended from a single pair of humans, but not a single pair of ancestors.

Gen 3 ***************************************** (+ a million more or so)

Of course, a child of whom one parent has original sin will also inherit original sin, and be human, so, like the descendants of Jacob, the descendants of Adam and Eve increase with each generation, EVEN IF THE WHOLE POPULATION ISN'T INCREASING:

Gen 4 *************************************** (+ a million more or so)

So even after just a few generations, most of the nearby hominids are descendants of Adam, and are human, and over time this will spread to the whole population.

Gen 7 ******************************************************* (+ a million more or so)

So fast forwarding just a few thousand years, the whole population is human.

Gen 83 **********************************(+ a million more or so)

Notice that at no time was the whole breeding population limited to just two individuals.

This is why the Catholic Dr. Ayayla could say:

We know that our ancestors were never at any time just two individuals. Modern genetic analysis allows us to conclude that through millions of years of our history, there have been always at any time at the very least several thousand individuals. So we don't descend from a single pair. (Dr. Francisco Ayala)

See? We don't descend from only a single pair of ancestors, as the good Dr. is pointing out. At the same time, we can be descended from a single pair of humans (Adam and Eve), as shown above.

Regardless of whether or not you think this is what happened, do you agree that this solves any problems of "two individuals" and the large populations shown by science?

In Christ -

Papias

 

[justlookinla]

That is an over over simplified analogy.

Gotta start somewhere.

 

[justlookinla]

Juvi wrote:



Good question, since it is not easy for most people to imagine. The key is to think over many generations, remembering that mutations are spread due to reproduction and natural selection, and also remembering that one's number of descendants increases geometrically, which means that before too long, the entire population is descended from any given previous individual. This is explained step by step below.




Only one need "make it" (and it's not one step for the mutations anyway). That one will have kids, after all. If their many little mutational changes are beneficial, they will, on average, be selected for and soon be present in everyone in the whole population.




My example will use a million in the population. In general, "fairly large" means, here, at least in the thousands.

Here is a step by step example:

Consider the hominid population that is evolving to be more and more human. It consists of all non-humans, each represented by an asterisk, below, with around a million individuals in the population:

Gen 1 ****************************************** (+ a million more or so)

Call that Generation 1 (Gen1)

Now, in Gen 2, A hominid is born whom God gives a soul. The mutational changes for bigger brains are happening too, and I don't know exactly what the brain size was when God created the first human soul. This person is the first human, Adam. Along with his human wife, Eve, generation 2 looks like this, with humans marked in blue :

Gen 2 ******************************************* (+ a million more or so)

Now, Adam and Eve have many kids, and each of them is human, has inherited original sin, and is marked in blue. Polygenism is avoided because only Adam and Eve are human, thus we are descended from a single pair of humans, but not a single pair of ancestors.

Gen 3 ***************************************** (+ a million more or so)

Of course, a child of whom one parent has original sin will also inherit original sin, and be human, so, like the descendants of Jacob, the descendants of Adam and Eve increase with each generation, EVEN IF THE WHOLE POPULATION ISN'T INCREASING:

Gen 4 *************************************** (+ a million more or so)

So even after just a few generations, most of the nearby hominids are descendants of Adam, and are human, and over time this will spread to the whole population.

Gen 7 ******************************************************* (+ a million more or so)

So fast forwarding just a few thousand years, the whole population is human.

Gen 83 **********************************(+ a million more or so)

Notice that at no time was the whole breeding population limited to just two individuals.

This is why the Catholic Dr. Ayayla could say:

We know that our ancestors were never at any time just two individuals. Modern genetic analysis allows us to conclude that through millions of years of our history, there have been always at any time at the very least several thousand individuals. So we don't descend from a single pair. (Dr. Francisco Ayala)

See? We don't descend from only a single pair of ancestors, as the good Dr. is pointing out. At the same time, we can be descended from a single pair of humans (Adam and Eve), as shown above.

Regardless of whether or not you think this is what happened, do you agree that this solves any problems of "two individuals" and the large populations shown by science?

In Christ -

Papias

It doesn't solve the problem of the alternative evolutionary view that mankind is simply another life form produced by only random/chance, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic mechanism acting on an alleged single life form of long long ago.

The two views are not compatible. One view requires active intelligence, the other no active intelligence is allowed.

 

[PsychoSarah]

How would that work according your mutation hypothesis?

One million chimps mutated toward human, how many would eventually make it? For those who made it, were they the same kind of human to start with?

(If they mutated randomly, but not "toward" human, it seems the chance of becoming one human species would be dismally small. If so, what do you mean by "fairly large population"?)

That's not how evolution works, it isn't on the level of the individual like that. Also, we did not evolve from chimps, we share an ancestor with chimps.

In any case, a small number in a population, can be as few as 1, have a single mutation that gives them a more "human" trait. They breed, and pass down this trait. If it is advantageous, it can become the most common trait to have within the overall population after a few dozen generations. The same sort of thing happens, over and over again. This is why we don't have 1 human surrounded by chimps as a situation: evolution occurs in an entire population. If the trait prevents an individual from reproducing with the others in the population, that trait dies out and is not present in future generations.

Obviously, there is a decent amount of wiggle room for reproduction: whales and dolphins can reproduce, their young might be sterile or just super rare, but cross-species offspring can occur, it is just not likely to happen (seeing as part of the definition of species relies upon reproduction). Plus, species can have a super wide range of traits, as we see with dogs.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I don't think it's feasible to maintain that a literal Adam and Eve existed.

As to Genesis, they clearly are described as individuals in Gen 2+. I would take that story to be a traditional one included in the Bible because it showed the Hebrew's understanding of their relationship to God, but not because it was history or biology. But I don't support reading it as some kind of symbol for a group. That's misconstruing it as history.

As to Paul, he was speaking of the implications of Genesis. Plenty of mainline writers and preachers quote the creation story and talk about its implications. They almost always discuss it in its own terms. That is, they treat Adam as an individual, because that's clearly what the story says. When doing exegesis of non-literal parts of the Bible, you don't constantly say "you know this is non-literal." That is understood.

Did Paul actually understand that Genesis was not literal history? I don't see any way to be sure.

That's where I stand as well. What St. Paul says theologically is much more important than what his personal opinions about the historicity of the early chapters of Genesis, and to that extent would make Paul's personal opinion on the subject rather moot.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[juvenissun]

Juvi wrote:



Good question, since it is not easy for most people to imagine. The key is to think over many generations, remembering that mutations are spread due to reproduction and natural selection, and also remembering that one's number of descendants increases geometrically, which means that before too long, the entire population is descended from any given previous individual. This is explained step by step below.




Only one need "make it" (and it's not one step for the mutations anyway). That one will have kids, after all. If their many little mutational changes are beneficial, they will, on average, be selected for and soon be present in everyone in the whole population.

So, all human population began with ONE, not a big number.

 

[sfs]

So, all human population began with ONE, not a big number.

No. Each new mutation that contributed to making us human started in one individual, but that individual was always part of a larger population.

 

[dad]

No. Each new mutation that contributed to making us human started in one individual, but that individual was always part of a larger population.

No proof possible then. All pi in the sky. No reason to believe that, it is just some godless flight of fancy based on how some things now mutate, right?

 

[dad]

...--

 

[dad]

That's where I stand as well. What St. Paul says theologically is much more important than what his personal opinions about the historicity of the early chapters of Genesis,

?? Where did Paul say he had an opinion on Genesis?? Not true.

and to that extent would make Paul's personal opinion on the subject rather moot.

If it were true, we could talk, but you made it up.

 

[ViaCrucis]

?? Where did Paul say he had an opinion on Genesis?? Not true.

I didn't say he did.

If it were true, we could talk, but you made it up.

I haven't made anything up as I never said Paul gave his opinion on the matter.

Please don't put words in my mouth.

-CryptoLutheran