Evolution and Christianity and Salvation

[pocaracas]

i raised this issue on a Catholic forum recently and I was surprised how little it bothered people.  I claim that Catholicism and Evolution are not compatible, based on the following: 

Consider that it is a fundamental tenant of Christianity that ALL human beings, every one alive today, MUST trace their linage back to a single man (or woman) that committed the grave sin of rejecting God.  If you think this was Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, fine - you don't believe in Evolution and you can downgrade to other discussions on the topic. However, the general consensus of science-based Christians (including Cardinal Ratzinger) is that, if you want to rationalize evolution with Christian dogma, you must assume that ONE human being (and only one), at some time in our past, was 'injected' with a soul.  This was the first human being with a soul, perhaps 50,000 years ago (or 6,000 who knows).  

Hmmm.... Injected with a soul... What is a soul?

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/03/...l.html?m=1
""
And a human being damaged to such an extent that it could exercise none of its animal capacities and retained only its intellectual and volitional faculties in an impaired state would, you might say, be a stub of a human being, the bare minimum consistent with a human being’s surviving at all -- a human being reduced to little more than its nature, with almost nothing in the way of a manifestation of that nature.
[...]
Now such a stub of a human being is what a soul is, or a disembodied soul anyway. This is why Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophers often call a disembodied soul an “incomplete substance”
[...]
This is also a way to understand the sense in which the soul is the substantial form -- that is to say, the nature -- of a human being. A nature or substantial form is not a Platonic abstraction. It exists in a concrete individual thing, as its principle of operation and the source of its properties. It is there as long as, and only as long as, the individual thing itself is there. But when the operations and properties in question are prevented from being manifested, what we are left with in effect is the principle or source without that which flows from it. Thus to reduce a human being to the bare minimum consistent with its being there at all is to reduce it as far as possible to its nature or substantial form -- that is, to its soul alone
""

From this, I must ask how could there be humans without a soul at all?