Population Bottleneck

#243

Humani Generis

“37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]”

0 Likes

#244

Really? Got evidence?

0 Likes

#245

Local Flood.

0 Likes

#246

Absolutely.

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/10/28/pope-francis-comments-on-evolution-and-the-catholic-church

0 Likes

#247

Huh?..

0 Likes

#248

Not sure why you’ve quoted me as saying “Really? Got evidence?” as that is your quote to me.

1 Like

#249

I’m not sure what books you’re reading, but they’re not science books.

1 Like

#250

Worry less about out of date science books and the pay attention to the latest papers.

0 Likes

#251

US News is not as far as I know a magisterial source.

Neither is Transacos.

Neither article even mentions the flood.

0 Likes

#252

Not quite sure why you posted this–I think someone posted it before. But in any case, the key word in this section is “true” men. In what I described above, there is no conflict between science and religion in saying that one man, at some point, had a mutation that made him significantly different in some way. And if you choose to believe that at that point God gave this person a soul, that’s fine. So you have “Adam,” or the first man. Now of course there were thousands of other people around at the time–and after–who we would call Homo Sapiens. But they wouldn’t be “true” men in the sense that they lacked both this mutation and a soul. So no conflict.

Buffalo: Your subsequent questions I’ve already answered in previous posts. I’m not going to be drawn into an interminable word game. I will ignore any future posts from you.

0 Likes

#253

A single mutation does not do it.

1 Like

#254

There were?

0 Likes

#255

Yes, but that’s “adama” with an "a’ at the end. There is probably some punning going on, which makes sense.

Here is a quotation from https://answersingenesis.org/bible-characters/adam-and-eve/in-depth-look-at-translation-of-hebrew-word-adam/ but I just chose it at random. There are many places it’s defined the same way:
“The Hebrew word “adam” is translated either as “man” or “Adam” depending on context and on the presence or lack of the definite article (“the” in English, “ha” in Hebrew).”

But this is a side point, and doesn’t really matter. My point was simply aimed at people who think “Adam” was a proper name in the same way “William” or “Ebenezer” are proper names and that we know the exact name of the first man. Of course if you want to think that, no one is going to stop you, and the Church doesn’t care one way or the other.

0 Likes

#256

That was easy.

1 Like

#257

This goes back to Buffalo’s posts 211 and 212. I was curious about the sources quoted, so I checked them out. The main source–which quotes all the others given–is an article called “A Brief History of Human Evolution.” The author, Sarah Umer, is a Pakistani woman living in England whose academic credentials apparently consist only of the fact she is a graduate of the “Department of Visual Arts and Graphic Design, Institute of Visual Arts and Design, Lahore College for Women University.” I’m not quite sure what graphic design has to do with anthropology.

In any case, for about 2/3 of the article (no page numbers) she gives a pretty good summary of human evolution (not unlike what I gave in an earlier post above). Apart from a few quibbles about dates, her summary is quite good, with one exception. She is unaware (her article is dated October 2018) that Svante Paabo of the Max Planck Institute showed in 2010 (8 years before this article…) that modern humans HAD interbred with Neanderthals, and non-African modern humans have between 1-4% Neanderthal DNA (to the extent that, since different strands of Neanderthal DNA appear in different people) up to perhaps 70% (a high estimate) of Neanderthal DNA can be re-constructed from modern humans.

But after this summary, she inexplicably launches into an attack on evolution without any explanatory link. She quotes Derek Ager, who was (in the 70s) a geologist at Swansea University, but of course if you read his quotation ("…not gradual evolution but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another…") it doesn’t oppose evolution at all. In fact, it summarizes the punctuated equilibrium theory of Stephen J. Gould. Likewise a quotation from Douglas Futuyma (an evolutionary biologist at Stony Brook) ("…If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by omnipotent intelligence." And as someone else has quite rightly pointed out earlier on this thread, the operative word is “If.” He is contrasting two theories. In fact, he a a champion of evolution: “…his book [“Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution”] has been regarded as highly effective in making the argument for evolution…”

In her conclusion, Sarah Umer references as authority Solly Zuckerman, mostly known as an advisor on bombing strategy in WW II. He was a professor of anatomy, but his main work on apes dates from 1931. As one review states, “Solly Zuckerman attempted to prove with biometrical studies (based on measurements) that the australopithecines were apes. Zuckerman lost this debate in the 1950’s, and his position was abandoned by everyone else (Johanson and Edey 1981).”

1 Like

#258

part 2—

She also references Charles Oxnard, whose position was similar to Zuckerman (Australopithecines were apes, not humans). As for Oxnard, “Finally, there is “an overwhelming body of evidence”, based on the work of nearly 30 scientists, which contradicts Oxnard’s work.” So much for Zuckerman and Oxnard.

In this post Harun Yahya (real name Adnan Oktar) is also referenced. Oktar is a Turkish Muslim creationist. He is, by most accounts, a cult leader and an extreme Islamist. He has a TV program in Turkey where he features his “kittens” (i.e. his female followers). Among other things, he denies the Holocaust. As far as I can see, he has absolutely no scientific training whatsoever.

Finally, Sarah Umer quotes Richard Lewontin, who is, in fact, a highly regarded evolutionary biologist. But–as I pointed out in my earlier post–the argument today is not whether the theory of evolution is true, but exactly how it works. Lewontin (and Stephen J Gould) think that organisms were not simply passive reactors to environmental changes which led to genetic mutations, they played an active part in trying to change their own environment. This is NOT an anti-evolutionary theory, it is one of a number of elaborations of the theory. The quotation Umer uses seems to indicate that there is some menacing conspiracy against non-materialist explanations for evolution. But that’s not what Lewontin means. He’s simply pointing out that science works with the material world. To introduce the supernatural into science is to destroy science as such.

In her last few sentences, Umer comes to the same conclusion I came to in my earlier post: that 50-40,000 years ago (I gave 60-40,000) “modern man entered the scene…” I agree. But then she veers off into religion, not science: “all the other species predating him were not actually ‘man’, or his ancestors.” Of course they were–perhaps not “modern man”–but certainly some were our ancestors and others were cousins (having branched off from out line of descent). All reputable anthropologists agree. Only those with a degree in graphic design or other totally unrelated field doubt that.

1 Like

#259

First thing is always to attack the person and or credentials. :grinning:

Unlike some others here though, you actually made a critique. Bravo.

0 Likes

#260

Your lack of knowledge is showing here, buffalo. Achondroplasia is caused by a single mutation and that certainly causes a “significant difference”.

rossum

0 Likes

#261

More on the Sarah Umer article in my posts above: A review of the article by Dr. Jerry Coyne, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Ecology and Evolution, U. of Chicago is at https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2018/12/18/creationist-paper-gets-into-a-springer-journal/

His conclusion: “This paper is an affront to all evolutionary biologists who do good work.”
The commenters on the review were not as kind to Sarah Umer.

He also gives an update on Adnan Oktar (Harun Yahya). He’s now in prison in Turkey.

0 Likes

#262

What did you expect Coyne to say?

0 Likes

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.