Adam and Eve and Genetics Difficulty

[Richca]

I’ve asked granny this same question in other threads, and have yet to receive a good answer: you’re claiming that science defines human beings in terms of our “spiritual intellectual soul”? Boy, I’d like to see that

 

[grannymh]

Original Question from post 138
“Do you know that the very first original fully-complete genuine human person to appear on planet earth actually and truly shared in God’s divine life?”

I’m not sure why you consider this question to be something that is not self-evident.

Yes, the “first original fully-human persons on earth actually and truly shared in God’s divine life” – after all, they shared in His “image and likeness.” This does not imply that the hominids who were physically identical with them (but did not possess immortal souls) likewise shared in His “image and likeness.”

Does this not seem obvious to you?

What should be obvious to the reader is that my question refers to a single first human person and your reply refers to original human persons in the plural. That is a mathematical difference. In addition, one could look at the principle of non-contradiction. A human person cannot be a single original person and a multiple original person at the same time.

Regarding the science approach, I strongly suggest re-reading the posts by Rossum.

In addition, I strongly suggest a review of the Catholic position that the human person is not two separate natures united – one studied as material science and one studied as spiritual theology. It is the God-given unique unification which becomes a single nature. For a good explanation of this, please read post 141 by Richa. Obviously, one first has to consider God as the free will Creator.

The true concept that we can share in God’s divine life requires numerous conditions beginning with the fact that Adam is not on the same level as is God. Since the biological human species is matter, that is, physical material, there has to be a way to connect with a pure spirit, transcendent, super-natural being. This means that we have to take a closer look at the “image of God” as taught by the Catholic Church.

Next, we need to take a closer look at the human being as a biological species. Obviously, the base for the biological species is its genome. The genome is a vibrant collection of genes which can adapt as alleles (versions of a gene). A wonderful example, set in stone, is known as the Homo/Pan split. Details are not really necessary. What is necessary is that the mathematical difference between a population of thousands and a population of Adam and Eve, means that the there are many marvelous opportunities for all kinds of “human” biological species. How does the scientist know which blood and guts, skin and bones has a spiritual, non-physical principle?

Obviously, I am headed for the necessity of two sole founders of the real human species which can share in God’s divine life.

 

[Gorgias]

Yes, I mentioned in another post that human beings are traditionally defined as a rational animal. Now, you will not find this definition in all the sciences nor in the kind of sciences your probably thinking of but you will find this definition in the science of philosophy and metaphysics as well as theology.

And that’s perfectly fine. In fact, in considering the question from the theological perspective, we agree: Adam and Eve (aka “our first human parents”) were rational animals.

We also agree that science does not use this definition. Therefore, the population of hominids alive at the time of Adam and Eve (and who were physical indistinguishable from them) would not be defined by science in this way.

(Moreover, in the theological context, they would not be considered ‘rational animals’ from a theological perspective.)

So far, so good. We agree: two definitions, one scientific and one theological/philosophical; the philosophical definition only applies to Adam and Eve and their descendants; the scientific definition applies to Adam and Eve and their descendants (but, I assert, not exclusively to them).

Again, it depends on what science you are referring to. In catholic christian philosophy and metaphysics, the scientific definition of ‘genus’ and ‘species’ in regard to living things has everything to do with souls.

Fair enough distinction. No, it is not the ‘science’ of philosophy and metaphysics to which I refer when I talk about ‘science’ here; rather, it is what is commonly held to be ‘science’ in the context of the physical sciences: biology, anthropology, etc, etc.

 

[Gorgias]

What should be obvious to the reader is that my question refers to a single first human person and your reply refers to original human persons in the plural. That is a mathematical difference.

But an inconsequential one. I would assume you’re talking about ‘Adam’ while I’m talking about ‘Adam and Eve.’ However, that doesn’t advance your argument.

In addition, one could look at the principle of non-contradiction. A human person cannot be a single original person and a multiple original person at the same time.

Again, non sequitur. The theological definition doesn’t require a single human, it requires two humans. You’re moving the goalposts: originally, you railed against the distinction between “thousands” and “two”; now that I’ve affirmed that I’m not disputing the theological definition of “two”, you’ve changed your beef to a distinction between “two” and “one”. Either I’m horribly misunderstanding where you want to go with this, or you’re not making sense…

In addition, I strongly suggest a review of the Catholic position that the human person is not two separate natures united – one studied as material science and one studied as spiritual theology. It is the God-given unique unification which becomes a single nature.

And, as I referenced earlier, I agree with the point you’re raising here. The original humans (let’s call them Adam and Eve, so you don’t get hung up on one’s and two’s) had a single nature of body and soul. I’m simply pointing out that a being who was physically identical to Adam and Eve but had no soul would not have this composite nature.

The true concept that we can share in God’s divine life requires numerous conditions beginning with the fact that Adam is not on the same level as is God. Since the biological human species is matter, that is, physical material, there has to be a way to connect with a pure spirit, transcendent, super-natural being. This means that we have to take a closer look at the “image of God” as taught by the Catholic Church.

Not a problem at all. And, the proposal floated here merely suggests that there were hominids who shared Adam’s biological nature while not sharing in his spiritual nature. There’s no contradiction with the notion of a composite being there.

Next, we need to take a closer look at the human being as a biological species. … What is necessary is that the mathematical difference between a population of thousands and a population of Adam and Eve

Quite. The biological species (to which Adam and Eve belonged) was a population of thousands; the theological species (i.e., ‘mankind’) was originally populated only by two – Adam and Eve.

How does the scientist know which blood and guts, skin and bones has a spiritual, non-physical principle?

Yes!!! You’ve almost got it now, granny! That’s precisely the point! Science cannot make any assertions about “spiritual non-physical principles”! Therefore, science’s assertions about “populations of thousands” cannot – by definition! – be talking about thousands of ensouled human beings! That’s precisely the distinction that the present proposal addresses!

So, to sum up: science talks about biological species (and points out that there was a population of thousands), while theology talks about ensouled humans (and points out that there was an original population of two). It’s only when you presume to conflate these two definitions that you run into trouble!

Obviously, I am headed for the necessity of two sole founders of the real human species which can share in God’s divine life.

And we would agree on that point.

 

[grannymh]

. The theological definition doesn’t require a single human, it requires two humans.

May I respectfully comment – Catholic Church theology does require a single real first human person. For your information, this section of Catholic theology pertains to the Original Sin and the necessary Divinity of Jesus Christ.

I understand a few of the problems on this thread which some, not all, people are having in regard to the structure of Catholic teachings and the relationship to the actual structure of contemporary science.

Apparently, the way to upgrade Catholicism is to attack annoying teachings from within. Change Catholic theology a bit here and a tad there so that no one will notice what is actually happening. The operative word is stealth.

Obviously, this thread is not the place to properly point out the current heresy. Because I do not wish to go off topic, I will simply say thanks for the conversation.

 

[Gorgias]

May I respectfully comment – Catholic Church theology does require a single real first human person.

In fact, it requires two: the effects of Original Sin are propagated through human reproduction. Citing Trent, Pius XII, et al, the Catechism discusses the “original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC, 390). Please note that this is in the plural: parents.

I understand a few of the problems on this thread which some, not all, people are having in regard to the structure of Catholic teachings and the relationship to the actual structure of contemporary science.

With all due respect, granny, I suspect that “pot, meet kettle” is the appropriate response. Our quandry seems to be that neither of us can get through to the other, and each of us thinks himself to be right and the other wrong.

Apparently, the way to upgrade Catholicism is to attack annoying teachings from within. Change Catholic theology a bit here and a tad there so that no one will notice what is actually happening. The operative word is stealth.

Nope – no stealth, no change in theology, no ‘upgrades’. Throughout the history of the Church, she has steadfastly held to the doctrines solemnly pronounced, while at the same time stating them anew in ways that reflect her greater wisdom in understanding Revelation. That’s all that’s happening here – a suggestion of how to understand the truth of doctrine without attempting to do so by closing a blind eye to scientific truth as well.

Obviously, this thread is not the place to properly point out the current heresy.

Aah. Now the rubber meets the road. Well, it’s good to understand where your vehemence and insistence comes from. However, you’re on shaky ground: each of the statements of doctrine that you (and richca) have quoted are statements with which I agree. Let me assure you: no one is trying to refute Catholic teaching – but rather, just to refute the misunderstandings of what Catholic teaching is asserting.

 

[grannymh]

In fact, it requires two: the effects of Original Sin are propagated through human reproduction. Citing Trent, Pius XII, et al, the Catechism discusses the “original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC, 390). Please note that this is in the plural: parents.

Regarding “parents” plural

Please tell me why the whole human race is not in Eve as one body of one woman known as the spouse of Adam?
Information source. CCC 404

Thanks for the conversation.

 

[grannymh]

. Throughout the history of the Church, she has steadfastly held to the doctrines solemnly pronounced, while at the same time stating them anew in ways that reflect her greater wisdom in understanding Revelation.

– but rather, just to refute the misunderstandings of what Catholic teaching is asserting.

Wow! Those gems in bold are marching flags in my neighborhood. In my neighborhood, those “misunderstandings” need to go so that “greater wisdom” can catch up to modern living. With those marching flags, it is goodbye genetic difficulty. Adam and Eve are about to go down the drain …

I do not speak for your neighborhood.

Seriously, genetic difficulty occurs when people ignore Genesis 1: 28. Genetic difficulty occurs because it is impossible for scientists to observe all the relevant needed data going thousands of years backwards, 24/7. “Fill the earth” covers a huge territory. Those appropriately placed bushes in children’s Adam and Eve books could have been anywhere at any time and never pop up due to environmental changes. Mother Nature can get angry at times.

I do not think this is a secret. Research on how human origin began includes some interesting assumptions. The actual genetic difficulty is that some, not all, assumptions, used as evidence, do not warrant an universal exclusion of the possibility of a true Adam and Eve. Note the word possibility. That concept is both huge and accurate.

One small note about genetics. There is no limit to alleles (versions of a gene), especially those developed in the organism’s immune system. As for DNA samples, I wonder how many people in a seven billion population spread out north and south, east and west, actually spit in a cup for a research project.

Thanks for the conversation.

 

[edwest2]

Hi everyone,

So, I’ve been a bit obsessed with this question the last few days, namely, how to reconcile Catholic doctrine on monogenism with the genetic evidence. In 1909, the Pontifical Biblical Commission declared that it is not permissible to deny the historical nature of the Genesis 1-3, which I fully agree with and accept. Pope Pius XII declared the same thing in his encyclical Humani Generis. I do not see how one can seriously deny the historicity of Adam and Eve without straining the texts of Scripture beyond their limits (Even if Gen. 1-3 can be dealt with, how about Gen. 4 which says Adam knew his wife, and she conceived?, or how about the beginning of the books of the Chronicles?, never mind the doctrine of the New Testament).

On the other hand, genetic evidence seems to indicate that the human race cannot possibly come from just two human beings who mated; the mutation rate would simply be too high, and if that mutation rate continued, the human race would have mutated itself out existence. It should be noted here that Y-chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve do not satisfy the problem, since there is no necessity that they lived at the same time (although they may have, according to scientific evidence).

Now, of course, this presents us with a difficulty. To defend the view that humans descend from 10000 primal ancestors does not seem to be able to be reconciled with Sacred Scripture, or Catholic dogma regarding original sin. However, the theories that I’ve been thinking of to reconcile it may not do justice to the science, of which, I admit I am grossly ignorant of (biology is the one subject I’ve never really found interesting).

My attempt at solution to the dilemma is this: It is of the faith that physical death is a result of the Original Sin committed by the first man, and it is also certain that all physical and emotional and moral sufferings result from this as well (afterall, Eden means, or sounds like the word that means, “pleasure” in Hebrew), so, having fallen from this state, a fast mutation rate would be expected for some time, which then slowed down by God’s Providence. This could explain what is meant by the long ages given in Sacred Scripture. I realize that the arch-skeptic is not going to be convinced by such a theory, given that it invokes supernatural intervention, but of course, this objection is of no merit to the Catholic.

My question for all of you is this (thank you to those of you who have read all of this! ): Is this explanation possible? Would it sufficiently account for the scientific evidence? Are there any other theories that are proposed to reconcile the two?

I’d prefer it if those who had a background in genetics could answer this question, however,I am not interested in this question being answered by skeptics, rationalists, and the like who simply deny monogenism flat out.

Also, if you could say a prayer for me to regain a little more peace of mind about this, I’d appreciate it.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

What is the scientific evidence? Despite claims made to the contrary, genetic evidence is conjecture and we cannot put that many generations into a laboratory. Neanderthal man was once thought to be a separate and distinct type of being. Now, it turns out some of us have Neanderthal DNA. New discoveries also show he was smarter and more sophisticated than once believed.

God comes before science. Science has limits. From Humani Generis:

“However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11]”

But that was written in 1950 some say. Divine revelation is meant for today.

Pope Benedict:

"BERLIN — Benedict XVI, in his first extended reflections on evolution published as pope, says that Darwin’s theory cannot be finally proven and that science has unnecessarily narrowed humanity’s view of creation.

“In a new book, Creation and Evolution, published Wednesday in German, the pope praised progress gained by science, but cautioned that evolution raises philosophical questions science alone cannot answer.”

So, the Church considers this matter unprovable.

Ed

 

[edwest2]

I don’t think it woulb be considered bestiality since they’d still be mating within their species (homo sapiens). The only difference would an immortal soul (or lack thereof of).

There is no evidence to support this idea. We are not taught that God selected two random, almost humans and dropped souls into them.

Ed

 

[edwest2]

The early chapters of Genesis are figurative. The first historical human in Genesis is Abram, who becomes Abraham.

Many of our Protestant brothers and sisters interpret the Bible literally - every word means exactly what it says…the world - indeed, the universe - was created in six days! We, as Catholic Christians, understand that the Bible is made up of many books, and contains many literary forms. The first 10+ chapters of Genesis are allegorical in nature, sometimes called faith stories - they are told to teach religious truth rather than scientific truth. We learn from the Creation stories that there is one God, that all things created by God are good, that humankind is created in the image of God, that man and woman are equal, etc. The concept of Original Sin didn’t exist until 1,300 years after Gen 2 was written, and it existed in oral tradition for centuries before that!

‘Adam’ literally means ‘person of the earth’…‘Eve’ was taken from Sumerian mythology, which speaks of a woman being created from the rib of a god…Lady of the Rib…same words mean Lady of Life…Eve - Mother of the Living!

From Catholic Answers:

"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).”

Romans 5:12

biblehub.com/romans/5-12.htm

Ed

 

[edwest2]

After reading through all of these posts and speculations I am more convinced that we are created beings. I do not see how evolution is compatible with Christianity. If the soul is merely the ability to reason and speak than that would imply our souls are our brains and I do not think that is true.

I am going to visit the creation museum this summer and see what they have to say. I think creation makes much more sense then monkeys mating and becoming humans.
God bless all.

Intelligent Design and miracles make far more sense. Eve was literally created from Adam’s side.

From Arcanum - Pope Leo XIII

“We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep. God thus, in His most far-reaching foresight, decreed that this husband and wife should be the natural beginning of the human race, from whom it might be propagated and preserved by an unfailing fruitfulness throughout all futurity of time.”

Ed

 

[edwest2]

Adam and Eve were the ancestors of the Hebrews, and eventually Our Lord Jesus.
The day that God made Adam, my ancestors were already running around loose in America, Africa, and Europe. When Adam and Eve sinned they stood as representatives for all mankind.

When you stop making bad assumptions about the implications of certain parts of scripture, the conflicts with science and common sense disappear.

For what purpose was Jesus Born? Why was He made a sacrifice?

Ed

 

[edwest2]

David Berlinski? If it was then he has not refuted evolution. He is just another DI propagandist pushing ID. If not Berlinski, then who was it?

Of course not, since that is not what evolution says. Evolution says that complex lifeforms evolved from slightly less complex lifeforms, adding a little more complexity on the way.

Francis Collins and Ken Miller would both disagree that evolution is atheistic. It is no more atheistic than the theory of gravity. You will not see God mentioned in a science textbook on gravity. Does that make gravity atheistic?

Your “seems” gives the game away. The biological evidence points towards evolution. Massively so.

… and who created malaria, cholera, Ebola and the Black Death. Strange sort of “loving” it seems to me.

rossum

All of creation was corrupted.

Ed

 

[edwest2]

I would advise to study closely what the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches about this. Here is a key point:
*III. The Holy Spirit, Interpreter of Scripture

109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.75

110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking, and narrating then current. “For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression.”76

111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. “Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written.”77" *

The writers of the Bible were not robots. They wrote what they understood of nature at the time they were writing.
I accept the Catholic Church’s interpretation of the Bible. In so doing, I find no problem with all the scientific details. Scientific details is not what the Bible is about. The Bible
uses historical, prophetical and poetical texts to express timeless truths.

Scientists by nature are literal in their observations. Poets and musicians are less so. Beautiful poetry about a sunset can often express greater truths about a sunset than a lecture on light rays. I think that this is where literal minded people often find trouble with the Bible. It is a matter of looking a something from very perspectives.

The writers of the Bible wrote in their time but not without the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

“When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the “entire books with all their parts” as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as obiter dicta [things said incidentally and in passing] and—as they contended—in no wise connected with faith, our predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the encyclical letter Providentissimus Deus, published on November 18 in the year 1893, justly and rightly condemned these errors and safeguarded the studies of the divine books by most wise precepts and rules. (Divino Afflante Spiritu, 1)”

Source: catholic.com/magazine/articles/is-everything-in-the-bible-true

Ed

 

[edwest2]

Looking purely at the physical side, there is no physical part of a human that is not also present in a chimpanzee. The proportions are different but every physical part of a human has its counterpart in a chimp. If the image of God is physical then chimps are also in the image of God, or at least very close to that image.

Since God is usually considered to be non-physical – science would be able to detect an omnipresent physical entity – then the image of God may be non-physical and hence outside the remit of a physical science like biology. It is usual for sciences to omit things that are outside their remit.

rossum

Human genes and fruit flies.

askabiologist.org.uk/answers/viewtopic.php?id=12889

Ed

 

[GEddie]

There is no evidence to support this idea. We are not taught that God selected two random, almost humans and dropped souls into them. Ed

Especially since souls are not dropped into human bodies at all.

The human soul is formed in and for the human body, and the body is grown around the soul.

Given the incredible fragility of the human life and body, which pretty much requires the work of the mind (as well as other minds) to keep alive; monogenism requires **less **faith than the premise of several thousand “soulless bodies” assumed to fill the gene pool and satisfy polygenism.

ICXC NIKA

 

[rossum]

Human genes and fruit flies.

I was not talking about genes, I was talking about the physical body: the phenotype. We do not have wings or compound eyes while fruit flies do. Every physical part of the human body has its counterpart in a chimpanzee: arms and camera eyes. That is not true with fruit flies, so your example is irrelevant.

We do share many genes with fruit flies – we are both eukaryotes, so the internal chemistry of our cells is very similar with similar genes. Consult a biology textbook for the details.

rossum

 

[Gorgias]

Regarding “parents” plural

Please tell me why the whole human race is not in Eve as one body of one woman known as the spouse of Adam?
Information source. CCC 404

Just look a sentence or two further in CCC 404, granny…
CCC #404:

By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.

They transmit the effect on human nature. Plural.

 

[Gorgias]

Especially since souls are not dropped into human bodies at all.

The human soul is formed in and for the human body, and the body is grown around the soul.

-1.

The soul is immaterial. In neither exists ‘in’ a body, nor does a body ‘grow around’ it.

monogenism requires **less **faith than the premise of several thousand “soulless bodies” assumed to fill the gene pool and satisfy polygenism.

Scientific polygenism, not theological. The proposal still asserts theological monogenism, with Adam and Eve as the first human parents.