H
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
I would have to look at the complete picture. I would take of my filters. I would look at what has been revealed as well as what we are observing. I would be very careful about making far reaching conclusions about what happened long ago, since I was no there to make the direct observations. I would try to be humble.
H
hecd2
Guest
Obfuscation. In other words you would attempt to twist the evidence to fit your pre-conceived notion of what you believe.
Those who let the evidence decide what they accept all agree that it shows that humans descend from a population that has never been as small as two people in the last six million years.
If you have a different and better interpretation of the evidence than this, let’s hear it - otherwise, you are just blowing smoke.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
B
buffalo
Guest
To quote Antony Flew - " follow the evidence where it leads."
Those that are analyzing the evidence have as many preconceived notions as we Catholics have Divinely revealed notions.
H
hecd2
Guest
Just so.
In other words, you don’t have a different and better interpretation of the evidence. You are only capable of poisoning the well. Claiming that there COULD be a different interpretation of the evidence is a long, long way from presenting a coherent case FOR a different interpretation of the evidence. And you can’t begin to do that. You can’t present a coherent argument refuting the mainstream conclusions from the evidence, never mind presenting a sensible alternative. That is way beyond you. The only argument you have made so far is that the science doesn’t fit the myth, and that is not a credible argument.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
B
buffalo
Guest
Not really - scientism is the issue. It is a dangerous proposition. I will stand by Revelation. Faith and science cannot be opposed for they flow from the very same God. I am content to let science catch up.
H
hecd2
Guest
So, you are genuinely incapable of understanding and refuting the evidence for a larger than two ancestry for humans. Just as the church was incapable of understanding and refuting the evidence against geocentrism. You are relying entirely on the myth, and the evidence can go hang. That’s fine, as long as we are clear how you derive your views
.
Revelation is silent on aerodynamics, classical mechanics, electronics, astronomy (well actually it’s not silent about astronomy - it gets it absurdly wrong), cosmology (wrong), geology, zoology (multiple wrong claims), botany (ditto), molecular biology, solid state physics, actually every single science you can think of. Science has no catching up to do when it comes to describing the universe - and the minimum population in the ancestry of humans is a matter for science, not for myth.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
B
brierpatch1974
Guest
To say we evolved from monkeys makes no sense. If that was true then there would be no such things as monkey today. And if monkey and man had a common ancestor why did man evolve and the monkey de-evolve so to speak? They have made no progress in evolution in comparison.
And as far as science goes there are many theories on how things work. But a theory is an idea and NOT a proven fact. So that argument has no “evidence” either.
BP
And as far as science goes there are many theories on how things work. But a theory is an idea and NOT a proven fact. So that argument has no “evidence” either.
BP
D
Delora
Guest
Besides, you can only PROVE that you exist. Not that I exist, or anyone else does.
Everything else is just logical thinking, but just because something is logical doesn’t make it true.
Oh, and physics is so insane – how could it not be divinely crafted.
Everything else is just logical thinking, but just because something is logical doesn’t make it true.
Oh, and physics is so insane – how could it not be divinely crafted.
C
Coder
Guest
I think this is irrelevant to the teaching regarding Adam and Eve.
All humans alive today have inherited DNA from this human or pre-human female. This does not mean that she is the only ancestor of all people living today. Some but not all people living today may have descended from others living in her time.
The fact that we have a common ancestor through our mothers at a point in history does not mean that we don’t have an only pair of parents at either an earlier or later date. This also applies to the common male ancestor discovered.
I ask whether this or similar reasoning is possible as an explanation:
The species was pre-human and declined and there were only two left. The offspring of these pre-humans were given a soul by God at conception and became the first true humans (Adam and Eve). Because Eve had genetic material from the female pre-human and we all descend from her then we all also have inherited from this pre-human.
I also propose this as a possible explanation:
Adam and Eve predated this other woman from whom we all inherit through our mothers.
I think people can mistakenly relate inherited genetic material from a common “ancestor” to our first parents. I don’t think the two concepts are directly related as I have illustrated above.
C
Coder
Guest
Hello, this is incorrect. The Church definitely teaches that all humans indeed descend from two common parents and we inherit our original sin from them.
P
PhilVaz
Guest
buffalo << The Cardinal in his interview a few months ago on CA live said it is certain we are descended from an original pair. >>
Can you quote Cardinal Schonborn directly from the program? You mean the one aired December 21, 2007. I’ve listened to that program before and while the question of Adam/Eve did come up along with a question about the hominids, Cardinal Schonborn did not say “it is certain we are descended from an original pair.” I remember that because I was waiting for something like that. I didn’t hear that.
The Cardinal doesn’t say that in his book either (which are all his cat lectures from 2005-2006) and he didn’t say that on the program that I can remember. I can re-listen.
Catholic dogma indeed says that, or at least did say that in the past. From Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma :
The first man was created by God. (De Fide)
Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De Fide)
The donum immortalitatis, i.e. the divine gift of bodily immortality of our first parents. (De Fide)
Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. (De Fide)
Through the original sin our first parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God. (De Fide)
Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil. (De Fide)
Catholic Dogma and Teaching on Creation
And the Catechism equates “our first parents” to exactly two people “Adam and Eve” here: paragraphs 359 (two literal, historical men: Adam and Christ), 375-377 (“our first parents, Adam and Eve,” “the first couple,” “the first man”), 379 (“our first parents”), 388 (“we must know Christ as the source of grace in order to know Adam as the source of sin”), 390-392 (“our first parents”), etc. See paragraphs 355ff on the creation of man and woman, and paragraphs 385ff on the Fall.
coder << Hello, this is incorrect. The Church definitely teaches that all humans indeed descend from two common parents and we inherit our original sin from them. >>
I was talking about the science. The Church and the Pope concedes the mainstream science of human evolution. See the ITC statement I quoted, also Cardinal Ratzinger’s previous book In the Beginning… (excerpts on my site) and his latest book Creation and Evolution.
Yes, I agree the Catechism does seem to teach, explicitly, that “our first parents” were “Adam/Eve” and by that they mean all human beings today and in the past are/were physically, biologically descended from these two people.
Now here is the problem. All modern science, biology, anthropology, genetics, etc definitely does not support that. We go back to a physical population of humans, not to two people. That’s how all evolution works: in populations. The population of human beings (or whatever hominids we would like to place Adam/Eve) was never just two in number.
This is a problem I’ve been trying to reconcile in here since May 2004. Here are two of my 2004 threads on the “when” and “how” of Adam/Eve:
Did Adam/Eve Exist?
and
When Did Adam/Eve Live?
So these questions have been around on the board from the beginning.
A physical/biological polygenism with a theological monogenism is a way to attempt to reconcile this, and still keep some semblance of “Adam/Eve” as literal or historical. Another approach is that of John Haught (Answers to 101 Questions on God and Evolution) who treats the entire Genesis account as myth and re-defines original sin. That is how most Catholic scientists or professional theologians would interpret this. Cardinal Schonborn does not address this “problem” directly in his book Chance or Purpose but he does accept the science of human evolution, that we are all eventually “star stuff” (I’ve quoted this before, see his section on “Man: A Part of Nature”, page 113ff).
Also I have Fr. Mitch Pacwa (mp3 from 1996 after Pope JP2’s statement) suggesting Adam/Eve may have been Neandertals, and lived among the population of same. Although he is wrong about "transitional forms" (being updated for July 2008) he at least doesn’t throw out the science. Fr. Benedict Groeschel as well on EWTN is pro-evolution (i.e. he doesn’t dispute the science of human evolution).
Phil P
Can you quote Cardinal Schonborn directly from the program? You mean the one aired December 21, 2007. I’ve listened to that program before and while the question of Adam/Eve did come up along with a question about the hominids, Cardinal Schonborn did not say “it is certain we are descended from an original pair.” I remember that because I was waiting for something like that. I didn’t hear that.
The Cardinal doesn’t say that in his book either (which are all his cat lectures from 2005-2006) and he didn’t say that on the program that I can remember. I can re-listen.
Catholic dogma indeed says that, or at least did say that in the past. From Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma :
The first man was created by God. (De Fide)
Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De Fide)
The donum immortalitatis, i.e. the divine gift of bodily immortality of our first parents. (De Fide)
Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. (De Fide)
Through the original sin our first parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God. (De Fide)
Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil. (De Fide)
Catholic Dogma and Teaching on Creation
And the Catechism equates “our first parents” to exactly two people “Adam and Eve” here: paragraphs 359 (two literal, historical men: Adam and Christ), 375-377 (“our first parents, Adam and Eve,” “the first couple,” “the first man”), 379 (“our first parents”), 388 (“we must know Christ as the source of grace in order to know Adam as the source of sin”), 390-392 (“our first parents”), etc. See paragraphs 355ff on the creation of man and woman, and paragraphs 385ff on the Fall.
coder << Hello, this is incorrect. The Church definitely teaches that all humans indeed descend from two common parents and we inherit our original sin from them. >>
I was talking about the science. The Church and the Pope concedes the mainstream science of human evolution. See the ITC statement I quoted, also Cardinal Ratzinger’s previous book In the Beginning… (excerpts on my site) and his latest book Creation and Evolution.
Yes, I agree the Catechism does seem to teach, explicitly, that “our first parents” were “Adam/Eve” and by that they mean all human beings today and in the past are/were physically, biologically descended from these two people.
Now here is the problem. All modern science, biology, anthropology, genetics, etc definitely does not support that. We go back to a physical population of humans, not to two people. That’s how all evolution works: in populations. The population of human beings (or whatever hominids we would like to place Adam/Eve) was never just two in number.
This is a problem I’ve been trying to reconcile in here since May 2004. Here are two of my 2004 threads on the “when” and “how” of Adam/Eve:
Did Adam/Eve Exist?
and
When Did Adam/Eve Live?
So these questions have been around on the board from the beginning.
A physical/biological polygenism with a theological monogenism is a way to attempt to reconcile this, and still keep some semblance of “Adam/Eve” as literal or historical. Another approach is that of John Haught (Answers to 101 Questions on God and Evolution) who treats the entire Genesis account as myth and re-defines original sin. That is how most Catholic scientists or professional theologians would interpret this. Cardinal Schonborn does not address this “problem” directly in his book Chance or Purpose but he does accept the science of human evolution, that we are all eventually “star stuff” (I’ve quoted this before, see his section on “Man: A Part of Nature”, page 113ff).
Also I have Fr. Mitch Pacwa (mp3 from 1996 after Pope JP2’s statement) suggesting Adam/Eve may have been Neandertals, and lived among the population of same. Although he is wrong about "transitional forms" (being updated for July 2008) he at least doesn’t throw out the science. Fr. Benedict Groeschel as well on EWTN is pro-evolution (i.e. he doesn’t dispute the science of human evolution).
Phil P
H
hecd2
Guest
I am sorry - I think I have confused you by attaching that link to my signature. I refute the misuse of the concept of Mitochondrial Eve to attempt to demonstrate the reality of a biblical Eve in that link. You are correct that that does not in itself show that humans descend from a population of more than two. For that, see below.hecd2:
I think this is irrelevant to the teaching regarding Adam and Eve.
That is absolutely correct.
That is true too - but the genetic data does not support the notion of a single set of parents in human evolution. See below.
This cannot explain the genetics, specifically the observed polymorphisms in the human population in autosomes, sex chromosomes and mitochondria which all agree that the biological lineage leading to modern humans was never as small as two individuals (and did not drop below about 10,000 individuals) since at least the divergence of chimp and human lineages.
This does not explain the observations either. The human population has never been as small as two individuals.
You are right about that. They are indeed two quite separate concepts. The Most Recent Common Ancestor is a scientific concept, whereas the idea that humans began with just two parents is a myth.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
N
n2thelight
Guest
Adam and Eve were not the first people on earth.Adam was formed after the 7th day in which Eve was taken from him.
Most people think that Gen2 is a rehash of Gen 1 ,but that is not the case
Genesis 1:27 “So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.”
So it was on this sixth day that both man and woman of all races were formed, and each after their kind. Yet all forms of mankind red, yellow, black [brown], or white are all created in the image of God.
Genesis 1:28 "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, ad over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”
Now lets look to when Adam was formed
Genesis 2:1 “Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.”
Genesis 2:2 “And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had made; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made.”
Genesis 2:3 “And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it He had rested from all His work which God created and made.”
Genesis 2:4 “These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,”
Genesis 2:5 “And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.”
Genesis 2:6 “But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.”
Genesis 2:7 “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”
The word “formed” is used [molded as clay] to describe the making of Adam. When man was formed he became a living creature. In the Hebrew it is “eth-ha-adham”, which refers to the particular person “Adam”, (not a generic form for man). The “Ha-Adham” [Adam] is the man that Christ will come forth through. Matthew 1:1-17, and Luke 3:23-38 both give us our documentation that this is true and did come to pass. Paul states in I Corinthians 15:21-23 that sin came into the world by the first Adam, but by the second Adam [Christ} all shall be made alive. Christ is the first fruits [to come out of the grave to everlasting life], and then “they that are Christ’s at His coming”. There was death by the first Adam, and salvation by Christ Himself.
Genesis 2:18 “And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.”
Genesis 2:22 “And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made He a woman, and brought her unto the man.”
You should notice that in Chapter one God created both male and female.
Adam and Eve were formed afterwards
T
Tracy10
Guest
Have you ever read “The Lost Books of Enki?”
amazon.com/Lost-Book-Enki-Prophecies-Extraterrestrial/dp/1879181835
It’s a book translated by a guy named Sitchin written long, long before the bible was ever written. Apparently the tablets still exist today. Remember, the bible wasn’t written until about 300 years after Jesus!
The Lost Books of Enki was one of the most interesting books I ever read. It seemed to fill in a lot of what was missing in Genesis (and there is clearly a WHOLE LOT missing from Genesis.)
After reading that book, the wording about a rib being taken from Adam to make Eve seems just that – nothing but “wording” to describe a process very much more complicated.
While you may be tempted to criticize Sitchin for his writings, remember that he didn’t WRITE this story. He only translated it, so you would have to reserve your criticism for the tablets themselves which are older than the bible.
It explains a whole lot about religion which seems to combine both Darwin and God’s direct creation; neither one of which is feasible without the other. It explains how, in a sense we did in fact evolve from apes, but could not do so without God’s intervention. It also explains in great detail exactly how that intervention took place. Very interesting and high tech. It’s certainly one of the books I wanted to OWN.
amazon.com/Lost-Book-Enki-Prophecies-Extraterrestrial/dp/1879181835
It’s a book translated by a guy named Sitchin written long, long before the bible was ever written. Apparently the tablets still exist today. Remember, the bible wasn’t written until about 300 years after Jesus!
The Lost Books of Enki was one of the most interesting books I ever read. It seemed to fill in a lot of what was missing in Genesis (and there is clearly a WHOLE LOT missing from Genesis.)
After reading that book, the wording about a rib being taken from Adam to make Eve seems just that – nothing but “wording” to describe a process very much more complicated.
While you may be tempted to criticize Sitchin for his writings, remember that he didn’t WRITE this story. He only translated it, so you would have to reserve your criticism for the tablets themselves which are older than the bible.
It explains a whole lot about religion which seems to combine both Darwin and God’s direct creation; neither one of which is feasible without the other. It explains how, in a sense we did in fact evolve from apes, but could not do so without God’s intervention. It also explains in great detail exactly how that intervention took place. Very interesting and high tech. It’s certainly one of the books I wanted to OWN.
I hope my questions come out clear but its kinda confusing myself thinking about it lol. But here goes…
If Adam and Eve where the first two humans created does it mean they where the only two “created” the same way. Could there have been others created like them at a later date?
And if they where the only two created then wouldn’t this prove God also created the process of evolution? I don’t mean the theory of man came from monkeys. But that people did evolve do to their enviroments. How else could we have the differant races of man? Skin color for example and other physical differances.
I hope this is clear and you understand what I am trying to ask. Thanks again for all the help. Everyone has been very patient and understanding with the many questions I have. lol And I promise there will be many mroe to come as I conitue to search and learn
BP
P
PhilVaz
Guest
Traci << Apparently the tablets still exist today. Remember, the bible wasn’t written until about 300 years after Jesus! >>
Uhhhh, error error
and off topic! The books of the New Testament, for the most part, were all written in the first century AD. Some scholars date a couple of the books into the 2nd century. What you get 300 years after Jesus are the complete NT extant manuscripts containing all 27 books (the Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, etc), but that is different from the authorship of the books and letters themselves. St. Paul’s letters for example date to the 50s AD.
Back to Cardinal Schonborn, I have re-listened to his 12/21/2007 CA Live (mp3) program. Apparently I am confusing this appearance with his "Chance or Purpose" lecture on Book-TV (mp3) on my site. On the CA Live program, he does mention “we are all children [or sons] of Adam and Eve, we are all related, we are all one human family.” However he clearly has in mind a theological monogenism (where the soul is infused and we finally become fully human), along with a physical or biological polygenism. I know this since he doesn’t deny at all human evolution on this program or in his book. The human population was never “just two people.”
On the CA Live program the Cardinal says the “young earth” position is “absurd” and “ridiculous”, he says Genesis is not a “scientific report”, he says “I am absolutely a believer in divine creation, but I am certainly not a creationist”, he says humanity is hundreds of thousands of years old, and in a question on Lucy (the Australopithecine) he says this could very well be a hominid on the way to becoming human (or “the steps that led” to humanity on the evolutionary line). So that is a theological monogenism, but a physical or biological polygenism. Anyone disagree?
Both Jerry and the Cardinal confused the “mt-Eve” and “Y-Adam” issue. This genetic “Eve” and “Adam” were separated by 80,000 years, and there were always a population of them on the earth. It does show that “we are all related”:
“…the fact that a single ancestor gave rise to all of the diversity present today does not mean that this was the only person alive at the time – only that descendent lineages of the other people alive at the same time died out…we are all the recent descendents of a single woman who lived in Africa less than 150,000 years ago. This result begs the question of where Eve actually lived – where in Africa was the Garden of Eden? In one sense this is a red herring, since we know that there were many women alive all over Africa at this time…the root of the male family tree was placed in Africa – exactly the same answer that mtDNA had given us for women. The shocker came when a date was estimated for the age of the oldest common ancestor. This man, from whom all men alive today ultimately derive their Y-chromosomes, lived 59,000 years ago. More than 80,000 years after that estimated for Eve! Did Adam and Eve never meet? No they didn’t, but the reason is fairly complicated…” (The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey by Spencer Wells [Random House Paperback, 2003], pages 32, 40, 54)
Author Spencer Wells also comments in an interview for Princeton University Press:
How does the genetic Adam relate to the Adam of the Bible?
“It’s interesting that both genetics and the Bible show that there is a common origin of humanity. According to genetic data we come from a single male ancestor. In the Bible too it is mentioned that there is a single male Adam and single female, Eve. I don’t equate our results one-to-one with the biblical story, of course, because if you count back through the generations described in the Bible, Adam should have existed in 4004 BC, and our Adam existed 60,000 years ago. Also, our Adam and Eve weren’t the only people alive at the time, just the lucky ones who left descendants down to the present day. But it is nice to know that we arrive at the same general conclusion: we’re all related.” (from an interview with geneticist Spencer Wells)
Phil P
Uhhhh, error error
and off topic! The books of the New Testament, for the most part, were all written in the first century AD. Some scholars date a couple of the books into the 2nd century. What you get 300 years after Jesus are the complete NT extant manuscripts containing all 27 books (the Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, etc), but that is different from the authorship of the books and letters themselves. St. Paul’s letters for example date to the 50s AD.Back to Cardinal Schonborn, I have re-listened to his 12/21/2007 CA Live (mp3) program. Apparently I am confusing this appearance with his "Chance or Purpose" lecture on Book-TV (mp3) on my site. On the CA Live program, he does mention “we are all children [or sons] of Adam and Eve, we are all related, we are all one human family.” However he clearly has in mind a theological monogenism (where the soul is infused and we finally become fully human), along with a physical or biological polygenism. I know this since he doesn’t deny at all human evolution on this program or in his book. The human population was never “just two people.”
On the CA Live program the Cardinal says the “young earth” position is “absurd” and “ridiculous”, he says Genesis is not a “scientific report”, he says “I am absolutely a believer in divine creation, but I am certainly not a creationist”, he says humanity is hundreds of thousands of years old, and in a question on Lucy (the Australopithecine) he says this could very well be a hominid on the way to becoming human (or “the steps that led” to humanity on the evolutionary line). So that is a theological monogenism, but a physical or biological polygenism. Anyone disagree?
Both Jerry and the Cardinal confused the “mt-Eve” and “Y-Adam” issue. This genetic “Eve” and “Adam” were separated by 80,000 years, and there were always a population of them on the earth. It does show that “we are all related”:
“…the fact that a single ancestor gave rise to all of the diversity present today does not mean that this was the only person alive at the time – only that descendent lineages of the other people alive at the same time died out…we are all the recent descendents of a single woman who lived in Africa less than 150,000 years ago. This result begs the question of where Eve actually lived – where in Africa was the Garden of Eden? In one sense this is a red herring, since we know that there were many women alive all over Africa at this time…the root of the male family tree was placed in Africa – exactly the same answer that mtDNA had given us for women. The shocker came when a date was estimated for the age of the oldest common ancestor. This man, from whom all men alive today ultimately derive their Y-chromosomes, lived 59,000 years ago. More than 80,000 years after that estimated for Eve! Did Adam and Eve never meet? No they didn’t, but the reason is fairly complicated…” (The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey by Spencer Wells [Random House Paperback, 2003], pages 32, 40, 54)
Author Spencer Wells also comments in an interview for Princeton University Press:
How does the genetic Adam relate to the Adam of the Bible?
“It’s interesting that both genetics and the Bible show that there is a common origin of humanity. According to genetic data we come from a single male ancestor. In the Bible too it is mentioned that there is a single male Adam and single female, Eve. I don’t equate our results one-to-one with the biblical story, of course, because if you count back through the generations described in the Bible, Adam should have existed in 4004 BC, and our Adam existed 60,000 years ago. Also, our Adam and Eve weren’t the only people alive at the time, just the lucky ones who left descendants down to the present day. But it is nice to know that we arrive at the same general conclusion: we’re all related.” (from an interview with geneticist Spencer Wells)
Phil P
B
buffalo
Guest
Phil,
Interesting. There is a dentist that caims that Neanderthals were the first humans. He had a video clip. I will try to find it.
P
PhilVaz
Guest
buffalo << Interesting. There is a dentist that caims that Neanderthals were the first humans. He had a video clip. I will try to find it. >>
Yeah it would be a minority opinion I think, although Neandertals are slightly older than homo sapiens, and they do overlap in the timeline. The Neandertals died out about 27,000 years ago (source: Bones, Stones, and Molecules by Cameron / Groves [Elsevier Academic Press, 2004], page 283-284)
I might have forgot, but I think Fr. Mitch was answering a question “who did Cain marry?” and at that point he brought up the Neandertals (the Genesis story implies there were other people around).
On Hominization: Adam was a Neandertal (speculative article by a Catholic physicist)
The creation-evolution threads are starting to stack up again. Hee hee.
Phil P
Yeah it would be a minority opinion I think, although Neandertals are slightly older than homo sapiens, and they do overlap in the timeline. The Neandertals died out about 27,000 years ago (source: Bones, Stones, and Molecules by Cameron / Groves [Elsevier Academic Press, 2004], page 283-284)
I might have forgot, but I think Fr. Mitch was answering a question “who did Cain marry?” and at that point he brought up the Neandertals (the Genesis story implies there were other people around).
On Hominization: Adam was a Neandertal (speculative article by a Catholic physicist)
The creation-evolution threads are starting to stack up again. Hee hee.
Phil P
C
Coder
Guest
I think that the Church teaching regarding “Adam and Eve” is De Fide in which case it cannot be in error. Therefore the genetic evidence is misunderstood.
This article indicates that the assertions based on alleles about the minimum number of humans in history cannot be made:
springerlink.com/content/mw9bj8mgque5bnbp/
H
hecd2
Guest
You are begging the question. The Church has a very sorry and failed history of making assertions regarding scientific matters. I think the modern Church leadership knows better that to go head to head with science over matters, such as this, that science can determine, but that caution obviously does not extend to all of Her children.hecd2:
I think that the Church teaching regarding “Adam and Eve” is De Fide in which case it cannot be in error. Therefore the genetic evidence is misunderstood.
It indicates no such thing. I wonder whether you have read the paper? First of all you need to understand that Rebecca Cann would never agree that “assertions based on alleles about the minimum number of humans in history cannot be made” – no professional geneticist would agree with that. Secondly, Cann is critiquing a particular paper by Francisco Ayala that concludes that the effective human population was 100,000 or greater, in contrast to Cann’s work on human mtDNA that concluded a smaller effective size of 10,000. I quote directly from the paper that you linked to: "They [Ayala et al] concluded that a long-term effective population size of at least 100,000 was necessary to maintain the observed diversity of human *DRB1 *alleles, an estimate 10-fold higher than that derived from mtDNA… However, the range of population sizes which could permit a large number of alleles to be maintained is broad… and the lower bound of these values is compatible with population estimates derived from mtDNA data” (ie an effective population of 10,000). Thirdly, Cann’s criticisms are not a blanket denial of the use of genetic data to determine past demography, but very specific criticisms of the assumptions and methods that Ayala used in his analysis of the DRB1 locus – a careful reading of the paper (or even just its abstract, which is, I suspect, all you have read of it) will tell you that. It does your case no good to misrepresent scientific work that you refer to. Finally, a reanalysis of the DRB1 locus looking particularly at introns yielded an effective population size of 10,000: Bergström et al, Recent origin of HLA-DRB1 alleles and implications for human evolution, Nature Genetics 18, 237 - 242 (1998)
Meanwhile, a huge body of work on genetic information covering mitochondrial DNA, the NRY of the Y-chromosome, the X-chromosome, various autosomal genes, various tracts on noncoding autosomal DNA, ALU-insertions, linkage disequilibrium, and microsatellites all agrees that the effective population size in the lineage leading to extant humans was at least 10,000, and there is no genetic signature of a severe bottleneck. Remember also that actual or census population will be 2x to 10x more than the effective population. There are many papers to which I can refer you, if you are interested in this, but the notion that humans are biologically descended from a single couple is simply not credible.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
- Status