How do popular evolutionary biologists come up with their decisions about Adam & Eve?

As I read research papers, I find language about estimates and assumptions, not many certitudes – unless one counts personal decisions that rule out two sole parents of the human species because some kind of bottleneck thing is being assumed.

What kind of information is being used to determine what constitutes a bottleneck? Where has this foundational information been validated?

Has Occam’s Razor (principle of parsimony) been used to eliminate possibilities which actually may be true?

How does the scientist work, especially the logic of it? Is inductive reasoning being used and with what certitude?

It is as if the materialists are assuming that a tall, sprawling weed necessarily eliminates the rest of the Garden!

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred.

Bingo granny.:thumbsup:

How do popular evolutionary biologists come up with their decisions about Adam & Eve? Easy - they consult their theology. :slight_smile:

(That seems to go for certain atheists, anyway.)

I’m not sure what bottlenecks have to do with it, we know there was no adam and eve because we know for sure we evolved from other primates, who in turn evolved from other species, and so on. This is a fact. There is no doubt on this issue at all.

1 Like

Facts need who? how? what? when? where? why? and cost?

Without these questions being answered, the idea that we evolved from other primates, who in turn evolved from other species as is indicated in post 4, remains a questionable assumption and not a non-doubtable fact.

I’m afraid you are mistaken, facts do not need to answer all of those questions to be facts. Most facts do not answer all of those questions. I’m not sure where you are getting this idea.

More fuel to put on the fire:

**DNA study sheds new light on horse evolution
**

“Overall, the new genetic results suggest that we have under-estimated how much a single species can vary over time and space, and mistakenly assumed more diversity among extinct species of megafauna,” Professor Cooper says.

and

Introns: A mystery renewed

“Remarkably, we have found many cases of parallel intron gains at essentially the same sites in independent genotypes,” Lynch said. “This strongly argues against the common assumption that when two species share introns at the same site, it is always due to inheritance from a common ancestor.”

In the days, when honest news reporting was taken seriously, Who? How? What? When? Where? Why? Cost? was checked out before the newspaper went to bed. These questions were also considered by serious academic scientists.

Practically speaking, a specific event or a specific science discovery would have more answers to one question than to another. Consequently, a judgment as to relative accuracy would be made if one or more questions were not answered.

If a person were seriously ill, which question would one eliminate when talking with a surgeon?

Science is not the same as news reporting.

These questions were also considered by serious academic scientists.

Again, I have no idea where you are getting this idea. The speed of light in a vacuum is 299,792,458 m/s. This is a fact. It needs not a who, how, when, why, or…cost, to be a fact. It’s just a fact.

If a person were seriously ill, which question would one eliminate when talking with a surgeon?

If someone were seriously ill, I hope they would not use your criteria for establishing facts. The fact would be that the person is seriously ill. If the doctors refused to accept the person was seriously ill without first seeing ID, the place where the person lived, proof of how they got ill, and why, and getting proof of their income, they would be very bad doctors indeed. Facts can answer “who what when where why” questions, but facts are facts. They don’t have to answer all of them to be fact.

1 Like

Well said, and I like your example of someone who is seriously ill as far as not really being able to eliminate those questions. Not every piece of information answers every question, but the answers to all the questions put together gives a comprehensive picture. When applied to your example, those questions are all part of getting a good patient history, making a diagnosis when it’s not immediately obvious (e.g., House, MD, where they come up with many different ‘whys’ to explain the symptoms until they come finally to the correct diagnosis), and most definitely in terms of health care the patient is going to want to know how much the treatment costs.

who - the patient’s information (inevitably is filled out at some point by patient or a relative), and anyone else they may have come in contact with (if the illness is contagious).

what - symptoms

where - any elements in the work or home environment that might have contributed to the illness

when - also important to know the history of how long symptoms have been occurring (chronic, acute, family history)

why - the diagnosis

how - how was the illness acquired?

In science, these elements (as they apply) are also examined to supplement information on a given phenomena. Maybe not all elements will apply, but there’s:

who: who will be studying the phenomena? Who first came to the measurement (e.g., who measured the speed of light, or came up with a certain equation)? Who are we studying?

what: what is being studied, or measured? What are the conditions under which it occurs?, etc.

where: This is self-explanatory…where is the phenomena being studied, is it the same in all conditions, or does it change depending on location (e.g., in space vs. on Earth or other planet)?

when: when did what/who is being studied live? When did what is being studied occur, When was it discovered, etc.

why/how: why does this phenomena occur? Why does it occur in the way it does? etc.

And the cost of studying whatever the particular phenomena is also definitely taken into account! Otherwise, we’d probably have done a great deal more space exploration, particularly manned missions, than we have!

:rolleyes: but we’re not talking about comprehensive pictures, we’re talking about facts. In regards to medicine, facts would be things like the person’s temperature, white cell count, that they are sweating, etc.

In science, these elements (as they apply) are also examined to supplement information on a given phenomena. Maybe not all elements will apply, but there’s:

If maybe not all of those elements applies, then it destroys granny’s point. And all of those supplementary questions have been studied in regards to common decent. Can we now all agree then that common decent is a fact?

Sometimes, posts like this remind me of contract negotiations I’ve participated in. Can we agree on paragraph 5, line 12? No? OK. The deal is off.

God is a fact. Common descent is questionable and the urgency often exhibited here to agree to/accept it makes it more questionable. Adam and Eve were two real individuals and the parents of all human beings. From the Catholic perspective, and this is found in the Library here on Catholic Answers, that is a fact.

Peace,
Ed

Something isn’t a “fact” if it’s only a “fact” from a certain perspective. Being in the library here on Catholic Answers is insufficient to establish something as a fact. Common descent is not questionable. It is an established fact, regardless of perspective. The only way to disagree with common descent is to be ignorant of science.

1 Like

“ignorant of science”? Do you know how many people in the US do not even make it through high school? How little the average American reads? How important is it to be ignorant of science? What will happen if most people are ignorant of science?

Peace,
Ed

Total collapse.:smiley:

At the very least. Followed by living in caves. :slight_smile:

Peace,
Ed

A sadly large amount.

How little the average American reads?

Fairly little.

How important is it to be ignorant of science? What will happen if most people are ignorant of science?

Being ignorant of science? Ok, feel free. But, if you choose to be ignorant of science, you must not attempt to challenge those who are well-versed in the subject. As we are having a discussion revolving around science, I think it appropriate to expect the participants to know what they are talking about. If you think being ignorant of science is perfectly fine, stop discussing it and stop posting here: your input is pointless.

However, to be ignorant of science is a sad thing in my opinion, for it is an intrinsic part of everyday life. Without it we’d have no medicine, computers, houses, etc…

But that’s another discussion:

As to Adam and Eve and evolution…

Evolution most certainly is an indisputable fact. However, the “Adam and Eve” you are searching for don’t really appear in the model. As to my limited understanding:

The species homo sapien arose and became distinct as soon as an organism could not mate with those specific members of the primate species “below” it on the evolutionary ladder. This organism/its population would be the figurative Adam and Eve… but the line between when our species begins and the time before it existed is much more blurry than I think is being portrayed.

Also, DNA tracing has lead many to believe that “Eve” was a female somewhere in Africa… but it’s far, FAR from definitive.

I guess the real answer is that evolution doesn’t really have room for Adam and Eve.

1 Like

Evolution is actually a theory based on a number of facts. So, how does science find out these facts?

Is observation a method for finding out facts which belong to the theory of evolution?

The species homo sapien arose and became distinct as soon as an organism could not mate with those specific members of the primate species “below” it on the evolutionary ladder. This organism/its population would be the figurative Adam and Eve… but the line between when our species begins and the time before it existed is much more blurry than I think is being portrayed.

I agree that the line between the human species and the time before it existed is very blurry. Going further, it is observable that the human species is separate, distinct and different in kind from our cousin chimpanzees. Not being able to mate with them is a key difference. (see thread "Is there any difference between a chimpanzee and a human? in Apologetics)

Since like descends from like, wouldn’t the first human beings have to be distinctly different from the common material ancestor which also produced primates? Wouldn’t there have to be real, not figurative, parents of the human species?

Also, DNA tracing has lead many to believe that “Eve” was a female somewhere in Africa… but it’s far, FAR from definitive.

“Eve” in the case of the “Out of Africa” theory is a poorly chosen name for a single scientific finding – the methods of which are being debated.

I guess the real answer is that evolution doesn’t really have room for Adam and Eve.

Strictly speaking, you are right. But the reason evolution does not have room for human beginnings is that the materialistic foundation for evolution cannot grasp the true and fully complete human nature which is ours.

Blessings,
granny

All human beings are worthy of profound respect.

Evolution is both theory and fact, depending on how you define it.
Evolution meaning, “the change in allelic frequency in a population over time” is a fact, tried and true. Evolution happens: factually.
The theory of evolution deals with the explanation of how evolution functions: namely natural selection, genetic drift, vertical gene transfer, etc, etc. But you have to remember that a scientific theory is the highest possible rank that a hypothesis can achieve: having mountains of evidence supporting it.

Since like descends from like, wouldn’t the first human beings have to be distinctly different from the common material ancestor which also produced primates? Wouldn’t there have to be real, not figurative, parents of the human species?

I’m confused as to what you mean by “like descends from like.” Genes are passed on from parent to child, yes, but mutations occur, sexual reproduction causes differences as well, and in fact children can be very different from parents.

“Eve” in the case of the “Out of Africa” theory is a poorly chosen name for a single scientific finding – the methods of which are being debated.

This is why I described the idea in such skeptical language: I’m not sure I buy into it.

Strictly speaking, you are right. But the reason evolution does not have room for human beginnings is that the materialistic foundation for evolution cannot grasp the true and fully complete human nature which is ours.

Woah woah woah, I never said evolution does not have room for humanity’s origin: evolution actually is the only comprehensive explanation for the development of the human species that is corroborated by observable fact. I was saying that evolution and “Adam and Eve” might be mutually exclusive.

Good catch. My bad. Please, my apology.

I have started reading those mountains of evidence you refer to above. As one who believes in evolution per se in that it refers to physical matter, I often automatically equate the distinctive, unique (material and immaterial) human species with two sole originators of the human race. In other words, “Adam & Eve” are more recognizable so at times I consider their unique individual human nature as being one and the same as our human nature.

Therefore, I started this thread in order to sort out available facts. Your reply is sincerely appreciated.

Have you read any of Francisco J. Ayala’s early research papers? My approach is analytical or what used to be known in the days of black and white TV as “Monday morning quarterbacking.”

Due to commitments, I will resume my side of the conversation later.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for knowledge is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.