Adam, Eve and Evolution

[SteveG]

hecd2:

Dear Steve, I have a clear view on the above supported by the science. Mitochondrial Eve is very bad name that I dislike because it suggests what it is not - the correct term is Most Recent Common Ancestor in the Matrilineal Line.

Option 1 above is not supported by science. Option 2 above is clearly supported by the evidence. Matrilineal MRCA is dated at 175,000 years (well before any evidence for cognitively modern humans), and she lived in a world that supported at least about 9,999 other humans of whom some 5,000 were female and of whom many contributed to our current genome through direct descent with some part of the genealogy lying in the male lineage.These (non-Eve) women’s genetic heritage lies in the somatic genome.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

I’d gathered from your article and other posts on this topic that was your position. But my question was a bit different (not trying to split hairs here). Since I am starting basically at square one on this extremely complex issue, I am trying to take this one step at a time. My queston was only whether option one was ‘possible’, without regard to the further evidence. I have no problem if option 2 is what other evidence shows, but I just want to get this straight as I move forward.
Realizing that you clearly support option 2 as the correct interpretation, I am still curious, is it correct/incorrect to say that option 1 is ‘possible’ considering ONLY the MRCA mtDNA evidence (however far-fetched it might be)?

 

[buffalo]

Oolon Colluphid:

I think you’ll find we’re all ‘gravitationists’ too. I also think you’ll find absolutely zero correlation between being a ‘Darwinist’ and atheist.

Maybe you will get tired of our ignorance and spend your time debating other HMMMMMM…Darwinists or Atheists or Evolutionaries.

Maybe we should take a poll on the correlation between being a Darwinist and atheist. And by the way gravity is provable.

 

[hecd2]

SteveG:

I’d gathered from your article and other posts on this topic that was your position. But my question was a bit different (not trying to split hairs here). Since I am starting basically at square one on this extremely complex issue, I am trying to take this one step at a time. My queston was only whether option one was ‘possible’, without regard to the further evidence. I have no problem if option 2 is what other evidence shows, but I just want to get this straight as I move forward.
Realizing that you clearly support option 2 as the correct interpretation, I am still curious, is it correct/incorrect to say that option 1 is ‘possible’ considering ONLY the MRCA mtDNA evidence (however far-fetched it might be)?

Dear Steve,

Oh - I had answered what I thought you asked rather than what you actually asked. Sorry.

Now then, to try to answer your actual question. First of all a reminder of what option 1 is:
1. There really was only one couple in the beginning—i.e, mitochondrial Eve could be a real Eve

And your question is could this be possible considering **only **the mitochondrial evidence? The answer is yes, the mitochondrial evidence on its own does not preclude the possibility that our matrilineal MRCA is also the *only *femaleancestor of the current human stock in her generation. However the mitochrondrial evidence does not support that idea either. It neither precludes it nor supports it. It says nothiong about it.

Note that the **existence **of a matrilineal MRCA does not depend on mitochondrial evidence. That a matrilineal MRCA of all humans currently alive existed is a mathematical certainty. The existence of mitochondrial Eve is not deduced from the mitochondrial evidence as fundamentalists erroneously claim - the concept is a logical consequence of population theory. The only question is how long ago did our matrilineal MRCA live and that is what the empirical evidence is needed for. And the answer is about 175,000 years ago, before the emergence of anatomically modern humans.

Does this help?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

Ghosty:

Rebuttals of other systems does NOT equate to evidence for one’s own system. …Galileo is the Louis Leakey of his day, IMHO.

I guess we are not that far apart now that we have both aired the things we feel strongly about and each compromised in some particulars.

You know, Ghosty, my original motivation to start posting on the list was my view that the Church is heading for another embarassment by cleaving to the genetic Adam and Eve doctrine contrary to very strong scientific evidence. I think the Church was more in the wrong with regard to Galileo than you do, and I think he was a far better scientist than you do, but we agree that he was a belligerent and passionate defender of his opinions (like me I am sad to say, but with more reason) and we agree that the Church made something of a mistake in dealing with him and with the scientific matters as she did, particularly with regard to her fundamental 1616 position on Copernicanism. My view is that she’s repeating the mistake in the case of the doctrine of monogenism. Having said all that, I am getting valuable new perspectives from you and others on the list and hope that I am contributing some little thing of value in return.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

Ghosty:

The Galileo debate is really neither here nor there, however. I’m still interested in why you insist on discarding the notion that there are multiple biological ancestors for humans but only one set of spiritual parents. The statement by the Church falls neatly within this framework, as does the scientific evidence. It would seem that such an argument would be the best of both the scientific and theological worlds combined, and wouldn’t require a compromise from either side.

Dear Ghosty, that would be the ideal scenario, wouldn’t it? The scientific evidence says that there were multiple biological ancestors of today’s human population and it’s very strong evidence. So let’s accept that idea (which I am certain flies in thef ace of what PiusXII intended to teach, but that’s my interpretation of hi words).

Science does not and cannot comment on the concept of the spiritual ancestry for modern humans (except that the concept needs the coalescence of mitochondrial and Y-chromosome MRCA to fall within the time of anatomically, or better, cognitively modern humans.) In other words you cannot have narrow spiritual ancestry without a genetic MRCA within the timescale of modern human cognition.

Unfortunately, it does appear to be the case that matrilinal MRCA predates anatomically modern humans…

Also, this apparently attractive idea of narrow spiritual and broader genetic ancestry leads to some rather disturbing possibilities such as current humans without souls. Uggghhh.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[SteveG]

hecd2:

And your question is could this be possible considering only the mitochondrial evidence? The answer is yes, the mitochondrial evidence on its own does not preclude the possibility that our matrilineal MRCA is also the only femaleancestor of the current human stock in her generation. However the mitochrondrial evidence does not support that idea either. It neither precludes it nor supports it. It says nothiong about it.

Note that the existence of a matrilineal MRCA does not depend on mitochondrial evidence. That a matrilineal MRCA of all humans currently alive existed is a mathematical certainty. The existence of mitochondrial Eve is not deduced from the mitochondrial evidence as fundamentalists erroneously claim - the concept is a logical consequence of population theory. The only question is how long ago did our matrilineal MRCA live and that is what the empirical evidence is needed for. And the answer is about 175,000 years ago, before the emergence of anatomically modern humans.

Does this help?

Absolutely. Thank you for the very clear explanation. I had figured as much, but wanted to be sure. You have two options based on just the mtDNA from MRCA and you move forward from there. And from the other evidence, we THEN say option 1 is exlcuded and option 2 is supported.

For the record, I want to be clear that you need not defend against the erroneous claims of fundamentalist in Catholic circles. As you are well aware, the church has stated that we are free according to it’s doctrine to accept that evolution is a viable method by which humanity came into existance. The issue of monogenism vs. polygenism is a different subject and has it’s own issues and must be reconciled. But with regard to the age of the human race being 6500 years, and other faulty deductions by the fundamentalist community, in general you shouldn’t need to defend against such for most Catholics.

OK, now if you can bear with me and some probably stupid questions on this, I’d really appreciate it. One sentence that muddles this for me a bit is the last sentence…

‘before the emergence of anatomically modern humans’

…Could you clarify that for me? Was mtDNA MRCA not ‘human’ in the sense we would define that genetically today? What were the main difference? When is it believed that anatomically modern humans did emerge?

Finally, I am going to throw out a hypothetical. Suppose for a minute you WANTED to explain and reconcile monogenism with the evolutionary data? Can you concieve of ANY way in which that would be possible? Again, putting aside the erroneous fundamentalist issues, is it possible that there is a straightforward reconciliation possible?

For instance, I saw in another post where you say that Y Chromosome MRCA dates to about 75,000 years ago. So what if this male ancestor mated with a female descendent of female MRCA (from 175,000 ago)? Could these two be the ‘real’ common parents? The first two with souls? What if there offspring then mated with other ‘soulless’ (not true humans) humans and all of those descendents had souls? and so on. My guess would be that you would answer that if this were so, then by definition the mate of male MRCA should show up as the female MRCA instead of the female from 175,000.

What if male MRCA mated with a sibling? Would that make a difference in how we read the genetic evidence?

You probably want to laugh at such speculation. But please don’t misunderstand that I am actually argueing these position. I am just engaging a bit of wild speculation to better undrestand the issue.

 

[Ghosty]

hecd2: I suspected that our views weren’t as distant as perhaps we first assumed. That’s too often the case in the most heated debates, I’ve found. For what it’s worth, I’m glad for your perspective as well. It’s been a while since I’ve actually been challenged on scientific matters and not just theological ones; it’s only been during the last 2 years that I’ve come into the Church, and since then I’ve participated in mostly theological debates despite my deep interest in scientific matters. I, too, am a belligerant defender of what I view as being true, and I was even when I stood against what I believe today

 

[hecd2]

SteveG:

For the record, I want to be clear that you need not defend against the erroneous claims of fundamentalist in Catholic circles…But with regard to the age of the human race being 6500 years, and other faulty deductions by the fundamentalist community, in general you shouldn’t need to defend against such for most Catholics.

Dear Steve, indeed it is what I expected but when I joined this board I was met by hick fundamentalist arguments which rather took me back to pointless debates on fundamentalist boards rather unexpectedly.

OK, now if you can bear with me and some probably stupid questions on this, I’d really appreciate it. One sentence that muddles this for me a bit is the last sentence…

‘before the emergence of anatomically modern humans’

…Could you clarify that for me? Was mtDNA MRCA not ‘human’ in the sense we would define that genetically today? What were the main difference? When is it believed that anatomically modern humans did emerge?

OK, no problem. There is no such thing as a stupid question - in this question we have to put the molecular and the palaeontological evidence together. The oldest fossil evidence that we have that looks like anatomically modern humans is known as Omo I. It is a skull and some postcranial material from river and lake deposits in Kibish in the Omo Basin, Ethiopia, discovered in 1967 by Kamoya Kimeu and described by Richard Leakey et al and displaying the oldest known fully modern human anatomy. Its dating is somewhat uncertain, but the upper end of the dating range is 130,000 years BP. Going further back there is the partial cranium from Dali in Shanxi Province China, dated at 200,000 years that shows classical transitional features between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens and is not ancestral to current humans. The emergence of fully modern skeletal human anatomy is therefore taken to be around 125,000 years BP.

The coalescence date for mtDNA is 175,000 years BP based on the current polymorphism of the human mtDNA and a mitochondrial mutation rate based on the palaeontogically evidenced divergence of humans and chimpanzees of 6 million years.

So matrilineal MRCA is dated to a time before anatomically modern humans emerge in the fossil record. But even more importantly (in my view), the earliest date of evidence of modern human **behaviour **goes back only 60,000 years, This finding that people that look like people today appear some 70,000 years before modern cognitive behaviour is very curious. I can expand on this if you want me to.

Finally, I am going to throw out a hypothetical. Suppose for a minute you WANTED to explain and reconcile monogenism with the evolutionary data? Can you concieve of ANY way in which that would be possible? Again, putting aside the erroneous fundamentalist issues, is it possible that there is a straightforward reconciliation possible?

I don’t think so, but let’s keep going and see if anything emerges.

To be continued

 

[hecd2]

continued

Originally Posted by **SteveG **

For instance, I saw in another post where you say that Y Chromosome MRCA dates to about 75,000 years ago. So what if this male ancestor mated with a female descendent of female MRCA (from 175,000 ago)? Could these two be the ‘real’ common parents? The first two with souls? What if there offspring then mated with other ‘soulless’ (not true humans) humans and all of those descendents had souls? and so on. My guess would be that you would answer that if this were so, then by definition the mate of male MRCA should show up as the female MRCA instead of the female from 175,000.
Yep - you have to keep in mind that at least since the divergence of humans and chimpanzees, the human lineage has, according to several different lines of molecular evidence, not dipped below about 10,000 individuals. Think of the 6 billion current humans as a population that arises from a significant community of genetic ancestors in all generations. Your scenario would require our genetic ancestry to coalesce to two individuals 75,000 years ago and we would get a matrilineal MRCA date of 75,000 years. In any ancestral generation the Y-chromosome MRCA and the mtDNA MRCA of a male need not have been mates ( and in recent generations for a small related group would not have been mates.)

What if male MRCA mated with a sibling? Would that make a difference in how we read the genetic evidence?

This is too subtle for me - where are you going with this?

Again, I hope this helps - come back to me on this in any way you like - I am enjoying these questions and you are making me think hard in a good way!

Alec

evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

Ghosty:

hecd2: I suspected that our views weren’t as distant as perhaps we first assumed. That’s too often the case in the most heated debates, I’ve found. For what it’s worth, I’m glad for your perspective as well. It’s been a while since I’ve actually been challenged on scientific matters and not just theological ones; it’s only been during the last 2 years that I’ve come into the Church, and since then I’ve participated in mostly theological debates despite my deep interest in scientific matters. I, too, am a belligerant defender of what I view as being true, and I was even when I stood against what I believe today

Well, Ghosty (I do find these screen names difficult!!), between us we represent two extremes on one particular axis. You are a recent enthusiastic convert and I have been steeped in the faith for 50 years, hold it precious and at the same time (can you understand this?) all but reject the magisterium and cleave to the free thinking of the Enlightenment (heaven help me for this admission on this conservative list, where submission to the magisterium is taken as directly equivalent to being in the faith!! I’m ducking.).

Alec
evolutionpages.com
Ad Majorem Naturae Gloriam
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

 

[SteveG]

hecd2:

Dear Steve, indeed it is what I expected but when I joined this board I was met by hick fundamentalist arguments which rather took me back to pointless debates on fundamentalist boards rather unexpectedly.

The only thing I’d say here is that the church does give freedom in this area to Catholics. I am free to accept evolution as the methodology explaing the how of God bring human life into being, but another Catholic is totally free to be content with Genesis’ acount and leave it at that. I can’t attest to what faith those who were argueing such postions were (as the board is open to all faiths), but it could have been anyone from a schismatic Catholic (i.e. sedavacantis) to a fundamentalist, or just a poorly informed Catholic. Just can’t say.

hecd2:

So matrilineal MRCA is dated to a time before anatomically modern humans emerge in the fossil record. But even more importantly (in my view), the earliest date of evidence of modern human **behaviour **goes back only 60,000 years, This finding that people that look like people today appear some 70,000 years before modern cognitive behaviour is very curious. I can expand on this if you want me to.

Please do, very fascinating stuff.

 

[SteveG]

hecd2:

Originally posted by SteveG:
***What if male MRCA mated with a sibling? Would that make a difference in how we read the genetic evidence?

---

This is too subtle for me - where are you going with this?

ha! I think it’s too subtle for me. I am not 100% sure I know were I am going with this either. Just engaging in some speculation…

…Anyway ther are two lines of thinking I am playing with (for any Catholics reading, these are clearly my own random thoughts and musings just out of interest, so no charges of heresy please ).

First, traditionally before the advent of modern science, the creation story had a problem in that if Adam & Eve were the first and only two human beings, one had to ask ‘Well then, who did their children marry/mate with?’ The classic answer has been that in such a case were their is no other option, the moral good of populating the planet, and pro-creating outweighs the prohibition against incest. So you have an acceptance in this special case that brother and sister did mate in order to get things going.

So, let’s just suppose for a moment that Y Chrom. MCRA is the first human born with a soul (the first ‘real’ man), and he has a female sibling also born with a soul (the first ‘real’ woman). As he grows, he recognizes he is somehow set apart,…different from his contemporaries. He obviously wouldn’t fit in and might feel ‘alone’ (as Genesis describes). Now the sister grows up and he sees something in her like himself. She is also different. He proclaims, ‘This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh!’ A true mate (even though it’s his sister) is found and he is alone no more. I know I have badly veered from science here, but my basic question is…What if these two were ‘Adam’ and ‘Eve’. If this were the case, would the close proximity of such a sibling relationship ‘throw off’ the genetic evidence? Or is this kind of thing already accounted for? Would this change at all if instead of just Brother and sister they were identical twins? Again, Just exploring scenarios, so sorry if this doesn’t make any sense. I totally understand if you can’t (meaning it’s not possible) answer this.

The other ‘scenario’ I have been noodling through is the possiblity that the emphasis placed on Adam’s role in Genesis somehow is an inidication that ‘soulfullness’ comes in spirutual terms from the male MCRA. Maybe Male MCRA is the only one in genetic terms that we need tie back to? If that were so, then everyone living today would be a descendent of that male MCRA, correct? The only thing it seems to me that would be required to solve this then would be that male MCRA’s mate would have to have been a ‘special case’, or an exception among the population (along with him). She was given soul without having been born of ‘Adam’, but everyone else living today, since the have male MRCA in common has a soul through him? I am probably missing something obvioius here, and even if this were correct, it presents other problems that would need to be resolved.

OK, what do you think of my rantings now?:whacky:

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

Already in this thread there are some theories of how polygenism may be in accord with one ensouled Adam. Our souls are not flesh so isn’t it jumping a logical rail to be using biological sciences to attack the mono-soul origin of Adam and Eve?

Adam and Eve as the origin of humans in the image of God is, i think, a required belief, for in Adam and Eve we have the proto-evangelium. This echoes into the very Eucharist and redemptive sacrifice of Christ.

It’s clear to me I have a fallen nature and I see myself reflected in others; I see Christ has a better Way, preambled by Mary’s “Yes” in counterpoint to Eve’s turning from God. This touches on the heart of faith. It may be worth looking at this issue from a spiritual perspective than a scientific one when asking who is our first mother and father created in God’s image, because rejecting this dogma may be rejecting Christ’s redemptive sacrifice. If there were no first fall, there was no need for a sacrifice as our nature’s never fell, but clearly even a poor student of history must come to grips with Man’s inhumane (fallen) nature.

This is a mystery beyond the scope of Man’s intellect because it involves the mercy of God and the incarnation of God. Not that I’m condemning speculation, but it shouldn’t lead to discouragement or any shaking of anyone’s faith.

God bless and I hope I helped some.

mike

 

[hecd2]

SteveG:

hecd2:

the earliest date of evidence of modern human **behaviour **

goes back only 60,000 years, This finding that people that look like people today appear some 70,000 years before modern cognitive behaviour is very curious. I can expand on this if you want me to.Please do, very fascinating stuff.

Well, as I pointed out above the oldest fossil human that is close to modern human anatomy is called Omo I which is a skull and some postcranial material from river and lake deposits in Kibish in the Omo Basin, Ethiopia. Its dating is somewhat uncertain, but the upper end of the dating range is 130,000 years BP. The emergence of fully modern human anatomy is therefore taken to have occurred around 125,000 years BP and there really is only one way that fate can go which is somewhat older.

Now, if we look at the paleaontological evidence for human behaviour (tools, artefacts, decoration, clothing, signs of religious ceremony,art) there is a massive and sudden step change between the Mousterian tool industry that existed between 100,000 years BP and 40,000 years BP and is associated with both Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens. Suddenly at about 40,000 years BP there occurs an astonishing explosion of extremely sophisticated art, religious artefacts and technology. The early cave art, for example at Chauvet dated to 30,000 years BP is astonishing in its subtelty and complexity, and its capacity to move us still. There is no doubt that between 30,000 and 40,000 years BP there emerges a humanity that we can be happy to share our meals, ideas and beds with. Before that, although we might recognise our ancestors as human, there seems to be an absence of the fruits of modern cognition.

The curious thing is this 70,000 to 80,000 year discrepancy between the emergence of modern human anatomy (at least in the skeleton) and evidence that points to modern human cognition. There is no really good explnation for the trigger that led to the sudden human explosion of creativity, art and abstract thought starting at about 40,000 years BP, 70,000 years after the emergence of anatomically modern humans.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

SteveG:

Dear Steve, So, let’s just suppose for a moment that Y Chrom. MCRA is the first human born with a soul (the first ‘real’ man), and he has a female sibling also born with a soul (the first ‘real’ woman). As he grows, he recognizes he is somehow set apart,…different from his contemporaries. He obviously wouldn’t fit in and might feel ‘alone’ (as Genesis describes). Now the sister grows up and he sees something in her like himself. She is also different. He proclaims, ‘This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh!’ A true mate (even though it’s his sister) is found and he is alone no more. I know I have badly veered from science here, but my basic question is…What if these two were ‘Adam’ and ‘Eve’. If this were the case, would the close proximity of such a sibling relationship ‘throw off’ the genetic evidence? Or is this kind of thing already accounted for? Would this change at all if instead of just Brother and sister they were identical twins? Again, Just exploring scenarios, so sorry if this doesn’t make any sense. I totally understand if you can’t (meaning it’s not possible) answer this.

The other ‘scenario’ I have been noodling through is the possiblity that the emphasis placed on Adam’s role in Genesis somehow is an inidication that ‘soulfullness’ comes in spirutual terms from the male MCRA. Maybe Male MCRA is the only one in genetic terms that we need tie back to? If that were so, then everyone living today would be a descendent of that male MCRA, correct? The only thing it seems to me that would be required to solve this then would be that male MCRA’s mate would have to have been a ‘special case’, or an exception among the population (along with him). She was given soul without having been born of ‘Adam’, but everyone else living today, since the have male MRCA in common has a soul through him? I am probably missing something obvioius here, and even if this were correct, it presents other problems that would need to be resolved.

OK, what do you think of my rantings now?:whacky:

Dear Steve, these are two variations on a single theme that has the possession of a soul following some sort of genetic descent. Once you give up the notion of genetic monogeny (which the scientfic evidence absolutely demands), you are left with the idea of broad polygenetic descent overlaid by the concept of narrow spiritual descent that follows the patrilineal lineage (y-chromosome) or the matrilineal lineage (mtDNA) or both. If so, we have to accept many generations, even generations up to quite recent times (perhaps in the last few decades) where there existed humans with and without souls, and that is a very troubling problem for me.

Look, today’s human population has a Y-chromosome coalescence to an individual who lived about 75,000 years ago. But this individual is not an absolute Y-chromosome Adam for all time. The patrilineal MRCA of all living people would have been a differerent individual in a different generation, for example 2000 years ago at the time of Christ, and will be a different individual in 2000 years time. Do you understand this? MRCA is always relative to the population set under consideration.

But there is a fundamental question - given genetic polygenism, which is not in doubt, what is the theological objective in having the possession of souls follow either a pure patrilineal or matrilineal descent.

In science we take the properties of people to depend on their total genetic ancestry present in their gnomes - unless you can point to a specific marker for ‘Adamness’ or ‘Eveness’ this concentration on a single ancestral lineage for the most important human attribute seems out of kilter.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

MichaelTDoyle:

Already in this thread there are some theories of how polygenism may be in accord with one ensouled Adam. Our souls are not flesh so isn’t it jumping a logical rail to be using biological sciences to attack the mono-soul origin of Adam and Eve?

Adam and Eve as the origin of humans in the image of God is, i think, a required belief, for in Adam and Eve we have the proto-evangelium. This echoes into the very Eucharist and redemptive sacrifice of Christ.

It’s clear to me I have a fallen nature and I see myself reflected in others; I see Christ has a better Way, preambled by Mary’s “Yes” in counterpoint to Eve’s turning from God. This touches on the heart of faith. It may be worth looking at this issue from a spiritual perspective than a scientific one when asking who is our first mother and father created in God’s image, because rejecting this dogma may be rejecting Christ’s redemptive sacrifice. If there were no first fall, there was no need for a sacrifice as our nature’s never fell, but clearly even a poor student of history must come to grips with Man’s inhumane (fallen) nature.

This is a mystery beyond the scope of Man’s intellect because it involves the mercy of God and the incarnation of God. Not that I’m condemning speculation, but it shouldn’t lead to discouragement or any shaking of anyone’s faith.

God bless and I hope I helped some.

mike

Dear Michael, I appreciate your position. Thanks for your view about this matter.

Unfortunately, it’s not as straightforward as you suggest. The simplest way to describe the position is this

1. the human population and the population of human ancestors is never less than about 10,000 individuals
2. in whatever generation we choose, modern human have thousands of ancestors
3. specific lineages (such as purely matrilineal or patrilineal or X-chromosome coalesce to indviduals living between 75,000 years BP (Y-chromosome), 175,000 years BP (mtDNA), 500,000 years BP (X-chromosome - Xq13.3) mtDNAand Y-chromosome do not coalesce to the same time.

This is something that we can deduce, not a mystery beyond the scope of human intellect.

You HAVE to take the scientific position into account as it describes the natural truth. There is no value in the spiritual position if it is contradicted by the natural evidence.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

1. in whatever generation we choose, modern human have thousands of ancestors

You do see this is nonsensical, right? It is an infinite regression.

hecd2:

Dear Michael, I appreciate your position. Thanks for your view about this matter.

Unfortunately, it’s not as straightforward as you suggest. The simplest way to describe the position is this

1. the human population and the population of human ancestors is never less than about 10,000 individuals
2. in whatever generation we choose, modern human have thousands of ancestors
3. specific lineages (such as purely matrilineal or patrilineal or X-chromosome coalesce to indviduals living between 75,000 years BP (Y-chromosome), 175,000 years BP (mtDNA), 500,000 years BP (X-chromosome - Xq13.3) mtDNAand Y-chromosome do not coalesce to the same time.

This is something that we can deduce, not a mystery beyond the scope of human intellect.

You HAVE to take the scientific position into account as it describes the natural truth. There is no value in the spiritual position if it is contradicted by the natural evidence.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

You pulled my quote out of context, so let me get it back in:

This is a mystery beyond the scope of Man’s intellect because it involves the mercy of God and the incarnation of God.

You do not know how the soul is promulgated. In fact it is created not inherited. Nor were you there when Adam was created or how or what environment in which he was created.

As far as science, science has been overturned time and again, so I stand by my point that the Incarnation is beyond the scope of a finite intellect.

To say that you understand the working of creation based on genetics is hubris. I’m sorry you don’t see it that way, but we’ll have to agree to disagree.

Many people put their faith in science over the Heart of Jesus and the result has been a horrific 20th century. By this I mean, people live their lives–shape their world view-- based on what science-like theories tell them, rather than what Christ told us. The result has always been horrific, e.g. Planned Parenthood, abortion, darwinian views of human life as animalistic rather than sacred. I don’t need to tell you where such views ultimately lead.

You HAVE to take the scientific position into account as it describes the natural truth.

No, not in matters of the soul. Better by far to take the advice of the Bible, the Catechism and the Pope, infallible in faith and morals. The creation of Man in God’s image by God (by whatever means) is a matter of pure faith. If you are getting distracted by worldly mechanisms, I think you are missing the vital points: Life is God created and life is sacred and this leads to love. The worldview that withdraws God from this reality is hellish and has created many times a hell on earth.

Sometimes it seems like a microcosm of the final judgement. My heart gets selfish so easily, that if I don’t focus on the Sacred Heart, I find myself seeing the world through Darwinian lenses. It is an awful way to live I say this from personal experience. Christ metaphysically IS the Way, the Truth and the Life; He is intimately bound up with the origin of man and the creation of Adam. Remove him from the worldview at society’s grave peril. And I would say anyone who lives without Christ as the Word and God as the author of life should reconsider these dual worldviews.

What do these theories do in your heart? Where is the Way?

Peace

mike

 

[SteveG]

hecd2:

where there existed humans with and without souls, and that is a very troubling problem for me.

Something with which I would also be totally uncomfortable.

hecd2:

But there is a fundamental question - given genetic polygenism, which is not in doubt, what is the theological objective in having the possession of souls follow either a pure patrilineal or matrilineal descent.

This is a really tough thing to explain to someone who lives with the paradigm you do and not have it sound foolish. Sometimes I think that the divide between folks who hold science as paramount vs. those who hold faith as such is so wide that it’s difficult to understand one another across it and still make any sense. Nonetheless, I’ll give it a shot. One thing I’d ask you to keep in mind is that at least speaking for myself, none of what I indicate below came to me rashly, or impulsively. My view of life, the church, morality, etc. has been hard fought and grueling at times. I by no means have ‘blind’ faith, but rather faith based on years of study, prayer, reflection, and many other factors all mixed in with the subjective experience of my life. These may not be facts in scientific terms, yet they are facts in my life nonetheless and no no less real to me.

The theological problem it presents is that no actual fall seems to lead to no actual original sin (a very important Catholic doctrine), which effects the truth of the meaning of baptism, the truth of the dogma of the immaculate conception, etc. To someone such a yourself who I have seen admit that the magesterium teachings are not binding(I don’t mean this in a deragatory way, so correct me if I misread), this may not be important. But for my part, I view the world not as a scientific question, but as a moral question. I am less interested in how, than why. My questions are not how did man evolve and take form, but rather what is man, and what is his purpose here? More specifically, who am I, and what am I suppossed to do?

…CONTINUED

 

[SteveG]

In my journey to answer those questions, at some point, I came to the deep seated, and I think rationally defensible position that objective truth/morality did exist. Please don’t understand this as a flippant comment-as this was probably the most difficult part of the journey and took many years of which most were spent as at least an agnostic if not more (or less depending on your perspective). In my search to discover if there was anyway that man (me in specific) could know what that truth is with any assurity, I came to the belief that God had established an institution on earth which was designed to do just that. Again, this is not a light comment. This conclusion was reached after years more of study of history, as well as almost every religious philosophy you can think of and a few I would guess you have never heard of. Nonetheless, I came to the point where I determined that for me, I needed to submit myself to the authority of the Catholic Church when it came to matters of faith and morals.

Now one might make the claim that this is a very comfortable decision to come to and makes it easy for me. That I have ceeded the wranglings of dealing with moral issues over to someone else to worry about. But this is not so. The living out of the moral teachings of the church are extremely difficult. From the prohibition on birth control, to the virtue of humility, they go against everything modern society has to offer and can require much difficulty to live up to. In many ways, it would be easier NOT to follow them. At least it would be more comfortable.

Further the living out of those teachings has a sort of built in proof. As you live them, the truth of them begins to manifest itself in ones life to a degree that is usually undeniable, and one becomes ever more convicted of them. When I entered the church, I submitted to the church without fully agreeing to all her teachings, but followed them nonetheless (if my intellect compelled me to submit, then I had to submit). Years later, I find myself ever more in agreement and ever more astounded by what she has to teach me. At this point, if I see a divergence of opinion between me and she, I accept that it is I who is defective not she, and that it is I who have to learn from her. I don’t want this to sound cult-like. Of course if the Church tomorrow told me to go kill someone, I wouldn’t be obliged to, but of course she never would do such. Everything the church teaches from beginning to end, is about the giving ones self away to others in love and charity.

That’s the short of it. I take the teachings of the church very seriously. More seriously than any scientific theory. If there is a seeming disconnect between current scientific theory, and the concept of monogenism, while interesting to discuss, I trust fully that it will be worked out one way or another. Either by new scientific evidence which resolves it, or by the church explaining it in a way that is acceptable and still doesn’t compromise the truths Catholics hold.

In the words of Herb Ratner, God wrote two books. The book of scripture and the book of nature, and they can not contradict each other. I hope this has made some sense.
God Bless

 

[hecd2]

MichaelTDoyle:

hecd2:

1. in whatever generation we choose, modern human have thousands of ancestors

You do see this is nonsensical, right? It is an infinite regression.

No it’s not nonsensical. We are talking here about the ancestry of humans. The population of the human lineage never drops below a minimum of 10,000 individuals since the divergence of human and chimp lineages 6 million years ago. Founder populations of two individuals hardly ever occur and this has not occurred in the human lineage. Why do you think what I said was nonsense?

You do not know how the soul is promulgated. In fact it is created not inherited.

I don’t claim to know how the soul is promulgated - speculation on that front has been coming from others. My point is that there is no one Adam in our ancestry who is the sole father of all humanity and so the Church’s doctrine of monogeny is wrong.

As far as science, science has been overturned time and again, so I stand by my point that the Incarnation is beyond the scope of a finite intellect.

Well the Incarnation might be beyond the scope of a finite intellect, but knowing that modern humans did not descend solely from a single man and woman is not.

To say that you understand the working of creation based on genetics is hubris. I’m sorry you don’t see it that way, but we’ll have to agree to disagree.

I say that I seek to understand the workings of the natural world by science - by your statement you would condemn all science to hubris. Look -if I look out the window and see it’s raining, the pope can decree till he’s blue in the face that it’s not so, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is. This is a similar situation.

Many people put their faith in science over the Heart of Jesus and the result has been a horrific 20th century. By this I mean, people live their lives–shape their world view-- based on what science-like theories tell them, rather than what Christ told us. The result has always been horrific, e.g. Planned Parenthood, abortion, darwinian views of human life as animalistic rather than sacred. I don’t need to tell you where such views ultimately lead.

I think you’d prefer it if Copernicus, Newton, Darwin, Einstein and Planck had never lived and we were still living in the Dark Ages. You do use a computer I know. Do you use modern medicine or a mobile phone?

I have not been talking about a matter of world views but about matters of fact where the Church’s doctrine runs counter to the facts.

No, not in matters of the soul. Better by far to take the advice of the Bible, the Catechism and the Pope, infallible in faith and morals.

Are you a geocentrist? A Young Earth Creationist?

Sometimes it seems like a microcosm of the final judgement. My heart gets selfish so easily, that if I don’t focus on the Sacred Heart, I find myself seeing the world through Darwinian lenses.

Not a bad thing - it is good for us to understand how we evolved, anatomically, physiologically and psychologically

And I would say anyone who lives without Christ as the Word and God as the author of life should reconsider these dual worldviews

.

I am not asking anyone to live without Christ - people are free to believe whatever they like in matters of faith. But I am a scientist for good reasons and I tell you that when matters of sciientific fact conntradict matters of doctrine I’ll go with the evidence of my senses and the reason God gave me every time. If the pope tells me to believe in the idea that the human race descended from only two people and I can see he’s plain wrong - what good does it do anyone to diistort the truth to fit the doctrine?

Alec
evolutionpages.com