Adam and Eve? That's just mythology, says Pell

[cornbread_r2]

If it agragorical it doesn’t need to factually proven. The story conveys our discordant relationship to God. A theme found in most religions. We are responsible for seeking reconciliation. Reconciliation is offered through Christ’s sacrifice. We are responsible to seek Christ.

What does agragorical mean?

 

[grannymh]

What does agragorical mean?

Google agragorical and you will be directed to ChesterBeach’s post 249 – with the question-- Did you mean allegorical?

 

[ChesterBeach]

Google agragorical and you will be directed to ChesterBeach’s post 249 – with the question-- Did you mean allegorical?

Yes I did. On my phone and letting my fingers out pace my brain. I am totally comfortable with looking at A&E as a story that shows the truth without being fact.

 

[grannymh]

Please note the following corrected post numbers and link changed from those in post 233. Thank you.

For the full text regarding scientific issues about the real Adam and Eve,
please refer to post 222 above. Post 222 addresses the widespread scientific mythology that Adam and Eve had somehow already been proven to be “impossible” by science, particularly by alleged “findings” of molecular biology and the Human Genome.

Referring back to the article linked in the OP, there is this note regarding one of the journalists present at the debate.

Asked by journalist Tony Jones if he believed in the existence of an actual Garden of Eden with an Adam and Eve, Cardinal Pell said it was not a matter of science but rather a beautiful mythological account.

Taking that quote at face value,
was Cardinal Pell’s answer directed to an allegorical (or possibly mythological) Garden of Eden which would be similar to a real garden on earth; yet, Adam and Eve would be actually real in their friendship with God? Unfortunately, the answer is not in the article. Thus, our discussion of the article should explore possible answers from science.

Because Cardinal Pell mentioned “scientific truth” which is a part of human nature’s material anatomy, it is important to know how that “scientific truth” relates to the popular notion that Adam and Eve are not real.

In post 222, Dr. Dennis Bonnette presents one of the facets of science regarding human origin.

.“The fact remains that a literal Adam and Eve are part of unchanging Catholic doctrine.” – statement from post 222. Link:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9200113&postcount=222

Note: Additional information about human origin can be found here. www.drbonnette.com

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[kama3]

The prediction that monogenism makes is that the human species can be procreated.

Nope, monogenism makes another prediction: observed genetic variability of humans should be consistent with effective population size Ne=2 at some point between today and the time we have split off from chimps.

This prediction has been falsified.

 

[grannymh]

Nope, monogenism makes another prediction: observed genetic variability of humans should be consistent with effective population size Ne=2 at some point between today and the time we have split off from chimps.

This prediction has been falsified.

Monogenism is a Catholic doctrine. Nowhere in the doctrine is there any reference to Ne=2. Neither is there any reference to the hypothesis that the homo/pan divergence from their common ancestor was roughly five million years ago.

One cannot falsify a non-existing prediction.

 

[kama3]

Given the topic of this thread, it was hardly unexpected that someone would post the widely popularized claim that Adam and Eve were “impossible” in light of recent findings in molecular biology, especially regarding the Human Genome Project. Many succumb to the modernistic tendency to “adjust” Church teaching to fit the latest findings of science – thus scandalizing Catholics into thinking that fundamental revealed truths are not well founded.

Geocentrism also used to be a well-founded, fundamentally revealed truth. According to Sungenis, geocentrism was the only thing that early Church fathers would all agree on

We must be careful not to confuse the technical concept of average effective population size estimates, which vary from as high as 14,000 (Blum 2011) to as low as 2,000 (Tenesa 2007) depending on the methods used, with an actual “bottleneck” ( a temporarily reduced population) which may be much smaller.

Now that is interesting, since effective population size is usually lower than the population’s head count…

A famed study by Ayala (1995) led many to believe that a bottleneck of two was impossible at any time in the human lineage after the Homo/Pan (human/chimp) split some five million years ago. However, Ayala’s claim of thirty-two ancient HLA-DRB1 lineages (prior to the Homo/Pan split) was wrong because of methodological errors. The number of lineages was subsequently adjusted by Bergström (1998) to just seven at the time of the split, with most of the genetic diversity appearing in the last 250,000 years.

Still, getting 7 lineages out of 2 people is going to be difficult…

Since a single mating pair could pass on a maximum of four haplotypes, the most recent studies appear potentially compatible with a literal Adam and Eve.

Which, conveniently, ignores the issue of distribution of these haplotypes in the ancestral population of that mating pair.

But that’s not really the problem. Yes, with enough determination one could probably bend over the theology and genetics to agree on literal Adam and Eve.

The problem is that after you have done so, you still have to demonstrate that it was only this specific pair which achieved sufficient rational facilities to commit the original sin. But even if you grant that, than you immediately another problem: who was Adam and Eve’s offspring reproducing with, and were Adam’s grandchildren as sentient as he was?

But wait, that gets better. Assume that you can identify a genetic Adam, and prove that he commited the original sin. Transmission of original sin to his offspring would be an example of Lamarckian inheritance or epigenetics. While this is possible (according to some), your ground becomes much more shaky than with Darwinian inheritance.

Thus, you have demonstrated that original sin is a genetic disease. Which begs the question: what if we indentified the DNA sequence responsible for it, modified it and produced a genetically modified human free from original sin?

Catholic doctrine trumps in any event, but even more so when the science itself is far from settled.

Yup, Earth is immovable. I have that the memo, thanks.

 

[kama3]

Monogenism is a Catholic doctrine. Nowhere in the doctrine is there any reference to Ne=2. Neither is there any reference to the hypothesis that the homo/pan divergence from their common ancestor was roughly five million years ago.

It’s self-evident that the writer of Humani Generis believed that there was a time where N=Ne=2. Humani Generis is a binding part of doctrine.

 

[kama3]

Of course, there is another question in this:

Why didn’t the all-powerful God simply leave us a self-evident signature in the DNA, corresponding to the Biblical story? It’s very simple, really. If the whole story was true, then we would simply have less genetic diversity in humans than there is…

 

[grannymh]

Geocentrism also used to be a well-founded, fundamentally revealed truth. According to Sungenis, geocentrism was the only thing that early Church fathers would all agree on

I see by your date of your joining that you missed the major discussions regarding geocentrism. Before reminding posters that Sungenis’s theories on geocentrism are off topic, I will clearly state that the idea that "Geocentrism also used to be a well-founded, fundamentally revealed truth." is totally wrong. It did take hundreds of posts and a few bannings (see CAF guidelines and policies) before the Catholic position was cleared up.

NOTE to Posters of this very interesting and valuable thread.
The geocentrism issue would be considered off topic.
Because that issue was not discussed under a shade tree in the Garden of Eden.

 

[kama3]

Come to think of it, this is probably the part of a much bigger issue.

Consider what is the message of the Fall story: Man was created perfect, Man disobeyed God and fell and so is now imperfect (or tainted with an original sin).

However, if the Man evolved from an ape, then Man is not a fallen perfect being – Man is an ascended ape. Man’s imperfections are thus not a product of Adam’s sin – Man’s imperfections are a legacy of his evolutionary past. In other words, in the Biblical view, Adam before sin was a more advanced being than anyone today, while in evolutionary view, Adam was less advanced than us all.

That’s a fundamental change in optics.

 

[grannymh]

Thus, you have demonstrated that original sin is a genetic disease. Which begs the question: what if we indentified the DNA sequence responsible for it, modified it and produced a genetically modified human free from original sin?

This is the very first time I have seen the idea that original sin could be a genetic disease. Good thing that Cardinal Pell did not mention it – we would have a massive pandemic of people looking for immunity vaccines. That idea is not totally unrealistic considering recent HIV genetic research which is looking into how AIDS could be stopped in its tracks.

Seriously, I do understand the many difficulties involved with the doctrine of Original Sin. And if my above remarks have offended anyone, please accept my sincere apology.

Instead of replying in a really cranky (feminine of snarky) manner, I will take some time to consider some of the issues of Original Sin which are tied to the first human Adam. I remember hearing about Matthew Fox so I know that various types of denial of both Original Sin and the reality of Adam have been around for some time. Please excuse me for a bit.

 

[kama3]

This is the very first time I have seen the idea that original sin could be a genetic disease. Good thing that Cardinal Pell did not mention it

Because that’s what it boils down to.

Why else would Humani Generis stress that every real human must be a direct descendant of Adam?

 

[buffalo]

Nope, monogenism makes another prediction: observed genetic variability of humans should be consistent with effective population size Ne=2 at some point between today and the time we have split off from chimps.

This prediction has been falsified.

How much diversity was thre at the start? With Adam? With Eve? Does anyone know?

 

[Julia_Mae]

How much diversity was thre at the start? With Adam? With Eve? Does anyone know?

Not enough. Between them, that could have a maximum of four alleles for each gene locus. But there are genes with more than four alleles. A lot more and in a lot of loci. You can’t get that many mutations into the generations between them and us.

 

[itullian]

doesn’t the church say Adam and Eve were real people?

 

[grannymh]

doesn’t the church say Adam and Eve were real people?

Yes, the Catholic Church teaches robustly that Adam and Eve are real people whom God loved from the very beginning of the history of humankind. We, as descendents of Adam and Eve, are assured that God loves and treasures each one of us.

 

[grannymh]

Not enough. Between them, that could have a maximum of four alleles for each gene locus. But there are genes with more than four alleles. A lot more and in a lot of loci. You can’t get that many mutations into the generations between them and us.

Seems to me that genes, either dominant or recessive, are inherited by chance. For example red hair can skip successive generations. Since chance is part of the material/physical anatomy, how does one know one is human?

The Catholic Church is wise in that it maintains that the best way to know that we are human is to know that we descended from one human couple.

 

[buffalo]

Not enough. Between them, that could have a maximum of four alleles for each gene locus. But there are genes with more than four alleles. A lot more and in a lot of loci. You can’t get that many mutations into the generations between them and us.

And epigenetics is factored in?

 

[grannymh]

Still, getting 7 lineages out of 2 people is going to be difficult.

It would be extremely difficult to get any different lineages out of two people if every child of the first couple were exact clones of their two parents. Which leads to the question, can one child be a clone of two people?

It comes down to the scientific observation of material/physical living organisms. Differences between species and differences within species can only occur if there are changes in DNA. One way to study these changes in humans is to examine the order or sequence of adenine, thymine, guanine, and cytosine base pairs. The human genome can contain 3 billion chemical base pairs that make up human DNA.

evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/mutations_02
ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/home.shtml,

One interesting fact about the Human Genome Project is that there is no typical human genome because humans are not clones, they are separate individuals. Thus,
in determining a sample human genome, various common sequences are used. When scientists use places like GenBank to obtain genetic information, they give certain specifications about the DNA. For example, research papers often list the areas which are the source for the DNA samples. Or researchers might ask for DNA samples from a specific ethnic group.

Please note that the information above does not address how each species originated in the first place.

What it does address is the present diversity in our human population. No matter how one looks at human origin, once the first human person Adam came to be, he was subject to the laws of creation including the changes which normally occur in living material anatomies.

The following is from the news article linked in post 1.

Cardinal Pell said humans “probably” evolved from Neanderthals but it was impossible to say exactly when there was a first human. “But we have to say if there are humans, there must have been a first one,” he said.

Those who base their observations on only the material/physical universe (without knowledge of God’s power) are limited to the assumption that current changes in the 3 billion base pairs which are part of DNA followed a similar pattern present in the first generations of the human species. Yet at the same time, singular past environmental events like the Toba catastrophe have to be considered. The assumption that the process of change never altered from day 1 is not realistic especially when known situations like the “founder effect” influenced by natural adaption could have changed the rate of improvements in DNA or conversely the “founder effect” could have led to extinction. Even the length of generational time does vary depending on how the researcher views a simulated population.

This all boils down to the fact that the researcher chooses the particular data for computer simulated populations. Eventually, mathematical formulas are devised to explain what people think was happening thousands of years ago. This is acceptable when one is limited to knowledge from the material/physical world.

Thus, we have some crucial questions –

1.Are humans limited to knowledge from the material/physical world?

2.Does this limited knowledge from the material world necessarily, absolutely exclude all knowledge of the spiritual world?

1. Are humans free to believe in God?