16
u/asdfKiller39 2d ago
Why is this biblebelt kinda thinking posted in a catholic subreddit? Catholics are neither creationists nor read the bible literally. We believe in God and science.
3
u/Aggressive-Party-372 2d ago
“The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.” — CCC 390.
2
u/asdfKiller39 2d ago edited 2d ago
If you want to believe, there was a literal garden Eden with Adam and Eve about 6-10k years ago, they ate an apple in, be my guest, but that’s not a mandatory catholic believe.
Edit: Grammar
2
u/Yksisarvinen13 1d ago
Of course there wasn't a garden and it wasn't 6k years ago (and the Bible never says anything about an apple), but Adam and Eve are fundamental for Catholic faith. There were 2 people who first sinned against God and from whom we all come, to deny that means to deny the original sin.
2
0
u/Ender_Octanus 1d ago
6,000 years ago is not necessary to believe. That Adam and Eve were real people from whom all humanity descended is necessary for all Catholics to believe.
1
u/Ender_Octanus 1d ago
This seems irrelevant to the content of the meme.
Catholics are obliged, under pain of sin, to believe that Adam and Eve were both people who lived at the same time, and were the first human persons, from whom all humanity descends.
1
u/Ornery_Bag7712 2d ago
i hope.you don't.believe in science as you believe in God.
good science recognizes its lijits, and is honest, not corrupted by provate interests.
current science is not very robust to corruption, since you need money to publish a research, and even more money to make wuch research, and so, people and groups with money can intervene and help some conclusions, and discourage others.
2
u/asdfKiller39 2d ago
It is, it’s called peer review. Papers lacking good scientific conduct get called out constantly.
Also taking all „science“ as one monolith is disingenuous. There is not the science. There is no good or bad science, there is the scientific method. A high level of scepticism against all „science“ is part of the antiintellectualism plaguing our time.
One of the largest fields where large scale corruption takes place are anti-climate change think tanks anf other more right leaning think tanks, but as you should be aware these are more for misdirecting the public, than actually contributing to the scientific consensus, which is for example that man made climate change is real. Despite the millions the fossil fuel industry invested to corrupt the scientific consensus, it didn’t, which is a great example how robust „science“ can be.
2
u/Aggressive-Party-372 2d ago
The dates overlap quite significantly between mitochondrial eve and y chromosome Adam. Poznik estimated Y-chromosomal Adam at 120,000–156,000 years ago and mitochondrial Eve at 99,000–148,000 years ago. So there's a pretty substantial overlap there.
Study: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4032117/
Stanford's summary: https://med.stanford.edu/content/sm/news/all-news/2013/08/common-genetic-ancestors-lived-during-roughly-same-time-period-scientists-find.html
we can not be definite about where they lived either. There are studies suggesting central Africa for mitochondrial Eve, for example: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3827445/
I'm not saying they definitely lived at the same time, or that they were the first humans. I'm just saying the evidence doesn't support being so certain that they lived thousands of years apart and on opposite sides of Africa.
31
u/BigDiscipline6275 2d ago
Im tired of Richard dawkins.He is obnoxious and ,,God delusion” wasn’t that great.Plus he was on the plane with ,,Big E” and probably knew what was happening on his property
30
u/PurpleDemonR 2d ago
I like Warhammer40K and when I read “Big E” I was thinking of the emperor, not Epstein.
Now I’ve got the (metaphorically) cursed image of Emperor Epstein in my mind.
6
4
6
u/Equivalent_Nose7012 2d ago
Soon no educated person will take Dawkins seriously.
"Selfish genes" have turned out to be regulated by the "junk DNA" that he ignored as, well, junk.
Yet, let us be charitable.
Suppose Dawkins was aware of Epstein Island?
Dawkins might, in his mind, just be arranging to spread his "superior" genes around more widely. This would likely be plausible to him,because his "selfish" genes could have infected him somehow, with an irrational meme of thinking he has some great enlightened object in so acting for the good of humanity as a whole; (it is just too bad if you happened to be an underage "sex worker," but perhaps your descendants would benefit). Once again: the grand joke is that biologists are showing that Dawkins' so-called "junk DNA" (not coding for protein) frequently nonetheless has a regulatory effect on Dawkins' so-called unregulated "selfish genes." So, both philosophically and scientifically, his argument lies in ruins.
You can look up the by-now extensive scientific literature on gene regulation by non-coding sequences at almost any scientific journals.
4
u/Anon_Belly930 2d ago
Richard Dawkins is well on in years. He has more years behind him than in front of him. Pray for his conversion before it's too late.
I still pray for the repose of the soul of the late Christopher Hitchens who died in 2011.
4
-38
u/Kalinon 2d ago
This also supports the theory of evolution. But go ahead and pick and choose.
58
u/unlimiteddevotion 2d ago
Catholics aren’t fundamentalists 🙄
0
u/tfalm 2d ago
Mitochondrial Eve has nothing to do with macroevolution or a purely material abiogenesis, which is what most Catholics would have an issue with.
15
u/ThingISworeToDestroy 2d ago
Why would most Catholics have issues with macroevolution?
3
u/tfalm 2d ago
Because it means there is no point at which a nonhuman primate becomes a human, but rather is a gradual incremental process. In other words, when did the ape become the imago dei?
That being said, its less of a problem because macroevolution is the result of a series of assumptions and thus becomes itself a belief system more than an observation of physical data.
Actual good science backs up microevolution, which is totally compatible with the sacred nature of humanity.
5
u/Southern_Vanguard 2d ago
Macroevolution is a belief system in the same way that dark matter is a belief system. Insomuch as...both could be wrong, but all the evidence we have currently points to them being true.
But sure, I mean they may not be true, but if you want the best answer to where we come from, or why the universe is exanding...its the best we have currently.
And also, me personally, I think you have it backwards. The onus of science is not to be compatible with sacred scripture, but vice versa. Aquinas wrote at length that all scientific truth comes from God. It is on us to take those truths and make them compatible with our beliefs. To say otherwise is to preclude any thinking man from faith.
1
u/KalegNar 2d ago
Because it means there is no point at which a nonhuman primate becomes a human, but rather is a gradual incremental process.
While the physical body evolves, the immortal soul is directly made by God. So could trust his decisions there.
Though, going from some rough numbers. Homo sapiens emerged ~550,000-750,000 years ago. There's estimates of language going ~135,000 years ago. One thought I've seen put out is that perhaps the first human with immortal souls were also those first ones with languages. So even then it's not the shift between species, but within physical homo sapiens itself.
5
u/Kalinon 2d ago edited 2d ago
Mitochondrial Eve also doesn’t prove the Adam and Eve story. Which is my point. There is no checkmate to be had here.
Mitochondrial DNA supports evolution because its inherited mutations form nested patterns of shared differences. When researchers compare mtDNA across individuals or species, they can build branching family trees: lineages with more mutations in common tend to share a more recent maternal ancestor, and the accumulated differences can be used to estimate when branches split. That is the same basic logic used to identify human mitochondrial lineages and infer “Mitochondrial Eve”—applied across a wider range of organisms.
Hence… the picking and choosing. OP is picking the science they like to try to prove Adam and Eve exist, while ignoring the rest.
74
u/Tam3ru 2d ago
Mitochondrial Eve is just a name, she was not first human and also she lived in a different time that chromosomal Adam (who also was not first human). They just happen to be most recent common ancestors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_recent_common_ancestor