Adam and Eve Again

  • Thread starter Thread starter Faith1960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Faith1960

Guest
Does this mean that

Does the quote below mean that mitochondrial Eve and Y chromnosomal
Adam were traceable to the same place? I’me confused because of the wording and because the previous sentence says something about a “small population.”

reasons.org/articles/when-did-mitochondrial-eve-and-y-chromosomal-adam-live

<<<<<<<<<< To put it simply, molecular anthropology supports a recent origin of humanity from a small population near where theologians think the Garden of Eden was located and traceable back to single ancestral sequences for mitochondrial and Y chromosomal DNA. This is significant in light of the biblical account of humanity’s origin. There is no scandal. There is no controversy. The scientific and biblical stories of human origins harmonize quite well>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
 
Faith1960 said:
Does this mean that

Does the quote below mean that mitochondrial Eve and Y chromnosomal
Adam were traceable to the same place? I’me confused because of the wording and because the previous sentence says something about a “small population.”

reasons.org/articles/when-did-mitochondrial-eve-and-y-chromosomal-adam-live

<<<<<<<<<< To put it simply, molecular anthropology supports a recent origin of humanity from a small population near where theologians think the Garden of Eden was located and traceable back to single ancestral sequences for mitochondrial and Y chromosomal DNA. This is significant in light of the biblical account of humanity’s origin. There is no scandal. There is no controversy. The scientific and biblical stories of human origins harmonize quite well>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Click to expand...
From all I’ve read thus far, Adam and Eve weren’t near each other, much less could have mated.
 
Faith1960 said:
From all I’ve read thus far, Adam and Eve weren’t near each other, much less could have mated.
Click to expand...
Genesis chapters 4 and 5 mention the offspring of Adam and Eve. They are real historical people. The Church teaches that they are mankind’s first parents.
 
johnnyt3000 said:
Genesis chapters 4 and 5 mention the offspring of Adam and Eve. They are real historical people. The Church teaches that they are mankind’s first parents.
Click to expand...
The first historical person to show up in Genesis is Abram, who became Abraham…
 
The problem only comes when trying to match science to a literalistic interpretation of the Bible. The teaching of the Church is simply that all mankind came from a pair of first parents, the Bible calls Adam and Eve. It does NOT state or postulate a time line because it really doesn’t matter.

That Adam and Eve were created 6,000 years ago, 100,000 years ago, or a billion years ago is irrelevant to the story that they were the original first parents, they were the instigators of original sin and everyone now on earth traces their ancestry back to those two alone.

The linked article seems to support the idea of first parents, even p(name removed by moderator)ointing their origin to the possible area of the Garden of Eden.

Seems convincing to me.
 
Here is a quite long article on this topic by Dan Harlow. He is a professor at Calvin College and also holds an MA and a PhD from Notre Dame.

asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2010/PSCF9-10Harlow.pdf

I am sure that I will get lots of responses that his views are not the official position of the Catholic Church.

My reaction is - get over it folks. If you hold back and cling to outdated scripture interpretations you only fall into the God-of-the-Gaps fallacy. We need to accept that God gives us an immortal soul and leave the rest to the natural world (which, by the way, also runs according to God’s laws).
 
Hans_W said:
Here is a quite long article on this topic by Dan Harlow. He is a professor at Calvin College and also holds an MA and a PhD from Notre Dame.

asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2010/PSCF9-10Harlow.pdf

I am sure that I will get lots of responses that his views are not the official position of the Catholic Church.

My reaction is - get over it folks. If you hold back and cling to outdated scripture interpretations you only fall into the God-of-the-Gaps fallacy. We need to accept that God gives us an immortal soul and leave the rest to the natural world (which, by the way, also runs according to God’s laws).
Click to expand...
That’s not what I’m looking for.
 
I’ve seen other recent posts about Creation and that some think that God did not create the Earth in 7 literal days. This kind of messes with my Protestant “inerrant, Holy Spirit inspired” Bible…

Answers in Genesis has some awesome theories as to God’s literal Creation story.
 
God can do things only God can do.

"Real History

"The argument is that all of this is real history, it is simply ordered topically rather than chronologically, and the ancient audience of Genesis, it is argued, would have understood it as such.

"Even if Genesis 1 records God’s work in a topical fashion, it still records God’s work—things God really did.

"The Catechism explains that “Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day” (CCC 337), but “nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history is rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun” (CCC 338).

"It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history, even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use.

"Adam and Eve: Real People

"It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

"In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “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 either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents 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 that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).

“The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “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. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).”

Ed
 
Faith1960 said:
Does the quote below mean that mitochondrial Eve and Y chromnosomal
Adam were traceable to the same place? I’me confused because of the wording and because the previous sentence says something about a “small population.”
Click to expand...
To answer your question. Catholicism teaches that Adam and Eve were the only ones who lived on planet earth at the dawn of human history. Both mitochondrial Eve and Y chromnosomal Adam lived in a population of hundreds to thousands. Being part of a large population or a part of two different populations means that neither mitochondrial Eve or Y chromnosomal Adam were the real Adam and Eve. Unless you are a Ph.D. geneticist, there is no real reason to study the media’s darling couple. Let the media have their fun. No need for Catholics to be concerned.
 
grannymh said:
To answer your question. Catholicism teaches that Adam and Eve were the only ones who lived on planet earth at the dawn of human history. Both mitochondrial Eve and Y chromnosomal Adam lived in a population of hundreds to thousands. Being part of a large population or a part of two different populations means that neither mitochondrial Eve or Y chromnosomal Adam were the real Adam and Eve. Unless you are a Ph.D. geneticist, there is no real reason to study the media’s darling couple. Let the media have their fun. No need for Catholics to be concerned.
Click to expand...
Actually, a tract from CAFsays that Catholics “can allow for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms under Gods guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul.”
 
Also, Adam and Eve didn’t live near each other in order to mate.
 
Does anyone have a link to share, showing they did live near each other and could’ve met each other?
 
Faith1960 said:
Does anyone have a link to share, showing they did live near each other and could’ve met each other?
Click to expand...
May I gently and seriously ask.

What is so important about one archaic fossil in a population meeting up with another archaic fossil in a population? Both have nothing to do with the origin of humankind.

I do recognize that Ph.D. scientists would be very interested because that information may help trace blue eye genes for example. Actually, there is a research paper in which the genetic source for a certain color of blue eyes was traced back to its originating population. I do not have a citation with me; however, this type of research is based on normal genetic analyzation.

The scientists involved with the mitochondrial Eve and Y chromnosomal Adam were not, repeat not, looking for the founders of humankind. Yes, I know that all kinds of people wish that those scientists had found the biblical Adam and Eve. And some, not all, people wish that those scienists had described the Catholic version of human origin where the originating population was a population of two, not hundreds.

The hard truth is that Catholicism teaches that two sole real truly-complete first human individuals are the founders of all humanity.
 
grannymh said:
May I gently and seriously ask.

What is so important about one archaic fossil in a population meeting up with another archaic fossil in a population? Both have nothing to do with the origin of humankind.

I do recognize that Ph.D. scientists would be very interested because that information may help trace blue eye genes for example. Actually, there is a research paper in which the genetic source for a certain color of blue eyes was traced back to its originating population. I do not have a citation with me; however, this type of research is based on normal genetic analyzation.

The scientists involved with the mitochondrial Eve and Y chromnosomal Adam were not, repeat not, looking for the founders of humankind. Yes, I know that all kinds of people wish that those scientists had found the biblical Adam and Eve. And some, not all, people wish that those scienists had described the Catholic version of human origin where the originating population was a population of two, not hundreds.

The hard truth is that Catholicism teaches that two sole real truly-complete first human individuals are the founders of all humanity.
Click to expand...
I ask because I believe that we lived among a group of hominids and God bestowed souls into two of them, making them the first humans. If Adam and Eve didn’t live near each other, that poses a problem…or does it?
 
Faith1960 said:
I ask because I believe that we lived among a group of hominids and God bestowed souls into two of them, making them the first humans. If Adam and Eve didn’t live near each other, that poses a problem…or does it?
Click to expand...
What were these hominids? People or animals like the apes we have today? Where does the belief that God bestowed souls into two hominids come from?

Peace,
Ed
 
Faith1960 said:
I ask because I believe that we lived among a group of hominids and God bestowed souls into two of them, making them the first humans. If Adam and Eve didn’t live near each other, that poses a problem…or does it?
Click to expand...
Thank you for your answer.

Personally, from my perspective, the real first parents of us lived together so that all humanity would be their descendants. I am satisfied with that explanation. 😃
 
grannymh said:
Thank you for your answer.

Personally, from my perspective, the real first parents of us lived together so that all humanity would be their descendants. I am satisfied with that explanation. 😃
Click to expand...
So what about all the science that says they didn’t live near one another?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top