Being Human?

[grannymh]

Umm… if the theological question were about DNA, then it would be relevant to ask whether a single pair of persons had human DNA. It’s not a question of DNA, though: the question is whether it’s plausible that a single pair of humans were the first ensouled persons. Science can’t address that question.

Excellent explanation.

It is possible that two, real humans founded humankind. Science correctly deals with blood and guts. Human nature is more than blood and guts. It consists of direct contact by a transcendent, supernatural, pure spirit without restrictions. In other words, the created universe does not have the power to destroy or discard its Creator.

 

[Hokomai]

Thanks to the Human Genome Project ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/home.shtml

all of the approximately 20,000 to 25,000 genes in human DNA have been identified. What needs to be remembered is that vertebrates (we are one) will have some similar genes. What makes the vertebrate anatomy human is the presence of the spiritual soul.

In general, polygenesis refers to a species having more than one set of founders. This does not apply to humankind.

In fact all living things share genetic material including DNA - fungus, plants, whales, us. We are all related.

 

[levinas12]

In evolution it isn’t like one generation wasn’t human and the next was. The change is fluid so that each generation is continuous with its ancestors. Small changes occur over several generations and gradually the population changes. It isn’t an event, it is more of a flow.

Human DNA has a very definite structure (like the unique factorization of a composite number into primes).

And we can p(name removed by moderator)oint with great accuracy the difference between human DNA and non-human DNA.

This difference that pushed pre-human DNA into the category of human DNA may have been “small” but it was a game changer.

Human mutation is a good example of chaos theory, a small “discrepancy” leading to a big difference.

Although nearly all of the DNA was continuous with what went before, the human mutation introduced a discontinuity with immense consequences. It was an Event.

 

[levinas12]

Umm… if the theological question were about DNA, then it would be relevant to ask whether a single pair of persons had human DNA. It’s not a question of DNA, though: the question is whether it’s plausible that a single pair of humans were the first ensouled persons. Science can’t address that question.

The DNA provides the infrastructure for the operations of the human soul.

Although they did not know about DNA, both Aristotle and Aquinas understood the actualized soul as the “functioning” of the human body. They were not Cartesian dualists.

But even more to the point. DNA is the infrastructure which makes possible the singularity of the human person.

Remember that “person” is not the same as Aristotelian “soul”.

“Soul” is another name for the “human nature” which we all share.

Person, on the other hand, is unique, incommunicable. A “person”, unlike “human nature”, cannot be defined by a genus and specific difference.

Sometimes, “soul” is equated with “person” but this is a philosophical mistake.

Sorry for this digression. Let’s go back to DNA. We **are **our bodies. And our DNA is our blueprint (both for “soul” and “person”). I don’t think Aquinas would have a problem with this formulation.

 

[Gorgias]

I would address the body of your post, but this line stopped me cold in my tracks; it’s this set of assertions that I’ll address here, and maybe it’ll make sense to come back tot he rest later…

Let’s go back to DNA. We **are **our bodies. And our DNA is our blueprint (both for “soul” and “person”). I don’t think Aquinas would have a problem with this formulation.

I think that the assertion that “we are our bodies” would be something that Aquinas would have a big problem with! We are the union of our soul and our body. To claim DNA as a sort of representation of our soul is poor philosophy. There are many problems with this formulation:

• which “DNA”? The set that we had at conception? The set that underwent modification in the process of gestation? The set that we had at birth? The set that we have after living for 40, 50, 60 years? DNA changes within the individual, of course – saying that it’s a “blueprint” begs the question “which blueprint?”
• If it’s the blueprint, then DNA is also a physical representation of our soul. Now you’re running smack dab into dualism: does the soul have a one-way relationship with DNA? That is, is DNA like a shadow? Does it let us “see” our soul without allowing us access to it?
• Also, what happens to the soul when the person dies? After all, the DNA is still there, but just not functional.
• You say that DNA is the “infrastructure for the operations of the human soul”. Does this mean that the soul is unable to operate without DNA? That makes your assertion sound a lot like “soul sleep”, which is something that the Church doesn’t hold.

So, there seem to be a number of serious questions that arise when one equates ‘soul’ with ‘DNA’.

 

[grannymh]

This is my personal opinion. I prefer the Catholic explanation of “human”. One can study that explanation in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraphs 355 - 366. Warning – this is not a page turner.

One can enter the Catechism on line with this link. scborromeo.org/ccc/para/355.htm

Then one can continue learning about human nature. Studying through to paragraph 421 yields valuable information.

 

[levinas12]

I think that the assertion that “we are our bodies” would be something that Aquinas would have a big problem with! We are the union of our soul and our body.

Philosophically, Aquinas followed Aristotle.

“Soul” is not a substance, an entity separate from the body. The actuality of “soul” is the “functioning” of the body.

… Also, what happens to the soul when the person dies? After all, the DNA is still there, but just not functional … you say that DNA is the “infrastructure for the operations of the human soul”. Does this mean that the soul is unable to operate without DNA? That makes your assertion sound a lot like “soul sleep”, which is something that the Church doesn’t hold.

The “soul” as the form of the body does not naturally survive death. The maintenance of the human person after death requires a supernatural act by God. This is a murky area in Thomism. Aquinas seems to argue that the individual agent intellect **naturally **survives death but what about the other operations that depend on the body, e.g., perception, imagination, potential intellect, etc - does Aquinas also argue that these activities **naturally **survive (without a special divine intervention)? I have some reservations about this.

Without the body, the “soul” cannot naturally function. So yes, without the DNA, there is no soul because there is no body. As Aquinas would say, the “soul” needs the bodily organs in order to perceive, remember, metabolize, “locomote”, etc

P.S. I don’t think the DNA changes that much (if at all) over the lifetime of an individual human being. Please elaborate.

 

[jimmy]

Human DNA has a very definite structure (like the unique factorization of a composite number into primes).

And we can p(name removed by moderator)oint with great accuracy the difference between human DNA and non-human DNA.

This difference that pushed pre-human DNA into the category of human DNA may have been “small” but it was a game changer.

Human mutation is a good example of chaos theory, a small “discrepancy” leading to a big difference.

Although nearly all of the DNA was continuous with what went before, the human mutation introduced a discontinuity with immense consequences. It was an Event.

It is irrelevant how distinct the current human genome is from other animals. The point is thatitgot there by steps. In biology there isn’t any hard dividing line between species. Speciation occurs through many small steps. A new species is defined when the fitness of two populations when interbreeding is zero. In other words, when an individual from one population breeds with one from another; if they cant produce viable offspring (assuming neither is sterile and they could produce viable offspring within their own population) they are two species. It is about barriers to procreation.

 

[tonyrey]

From what I’m aware of Jesus didn’t have to be born of a woman, He chose to be born of a woman from eternity (hence why we say Christ was begotten not created). Some will say Jesus had to be born of a woman to fulfill the Scriptures in which I will say yes simply because the prophets dictated the way in which God willed to come to humanity and since Christ is truly divine he would not oppose His own will

Precisely!

 

[jimmy]

Precisely!

So are you saying it wasn’t necessary for him to be consubstantial with us?

 

[tonyrey]

So are you saying it wasn’t necessary for him to be consubstantial with us?

I believe God could choose other ways to be consubstantial with us…

 

[jimmy]

I believe God could choose other ways to be consubstantial with us…

And God could make a square circle.

You might as well deny that the Son was born from the Father, because that is the source of their consubstantiality. They aren’t three gods because of their unity in the Father. Humanity is an image of god in this way. Just as the Father is the source of the Trinity, Adam and Eve are the source of humanity. It would be a different species if Christ were to have a nature that was created seperately from that of Adam and Eve, no matter how similar. Similarity isn’t what creates union.

 

[levinas12]

It is irrelevant how distinct the current human genome is from other animals. The point is thatitgot there by steps. In biology there isn’t any hard dividing line between species. Speciation occurs through many small steps. A new species is defined when the fitness of two populations when interbreeding is zero. In other words, when an individual from one population breeds with one from another; if they cant produce viable offspring (assuming neither is sterile and they could produce viable offspring within their own population) they are two species. It is about barriers to procreation.

How old do you think the current human genome is?

When did the interbreeding stop?

Are you arguing that the humans we can identify with appeared on the scene relatively recently?

The key phrase here is “humans we can identify with”. Now this is where the conversation makes a sharp turn. What is the “human difference”? Language, art, rationality, piety?

And what changes in DNA allowed the “human difference” to happen?

As you can surmise, I don’t think there is a smooth, uninterrupted continuum of small, insignificant mutations between “us” and the other animals. There is, instead, a radical discontinuity.

We have now entered the glorious realm of philosophy.

 

[levinas12]

abc

 

[jimmy]

How old do you think the current human genome is?

When did the interbreeding stop?

Are you arguing that the humans we can identify with appeared on the scene relatively recently?

The key phrase here is “humans we can identify with”. Now this is where the conversation makes a sharp turn. What is the “human difference”? Language, art, rationality, piety?

And what changes in DNA allowed the “human difference” to happen?

As you can surmise, I don’t think there is a smooth, uninterrupted continuum of small, insignificant mutations between “us” and the other animals. There is, instead, a radical discontinuity.

We have now entered the glorious realm of philosophy.

You may have entered the glorious realm of philosophy but you have exited from the realm of biology and anthropology.

You still don’t get it. You want to break it down so that you have animals on one hand and humans on the other. Evolution and biology do not do that. You want to say that the change was radical, but all the science says it wasn’t.

I never said it was relatively recently. The changes are still occuring. They have been occuring for millions of years and will continue to occur. What are you talking about when did the interbreeding stop? The interbreeding stoped when there ceased to be a single population and multiple populations resulted. Are you even paying attention to what I say?

 

[levinas12]

You may have entered the glorious realm of philosophy but you have exited from the realm of biology and anthropology.

You still don’t get it. You want to break it down so that you have animals on one hand and humans on the other. Evolution and biology do not do that. You want to say that the change was radical, but all the science says it wasn’t.

I never said it was relatively recently. The changes are still occuring. They have been occuring for millions of years and will continue to occur. What are you talking about when did the interbreeding stop? The interbreeding stoped when there ceased to be a single population and multiple populations resulted. Are you even paying attention to what I say?

I want to assure you that I have paid close attention.

It’s just that I think there’s a big difference between human beings and the other animals.

You seem to be blurring this difference.

As for the interbreeding … I was thinking of the approximate time when the human genome, as we know it today, “stabilized” … you say changes are occurring but it seems that the human genome has remained essentially unchanged for quite some time …

 

[levinas12]

You may have entered the glorious realm of philosophy but you have exited from the realm of biology and anthropology.

There’s not a total rupture.

Let’s just say that philosophy provides a deeper understanding of the phenomena described by biology and anthropology.

 

[jimmy]

I want to assure you that I have paid close attention.

It’s just that I think there’s a big difference between human beings and the other animals.

You seem to be blurring this difference.

As for the interbreeding … I was thinking of the approximate time when the human genome, as we know it today, “stabilized” … you say changes are occurring but it seems that the human genome has remained essentially unchanged for quite some time …

Why do you say it has remained essentially unchanged? People are on average almost a foot taller than a couple thousand years ago. Other physical attributes have changed too.

I don’t deny that there is a huge difference between humans and pother animals. Philosophy for one is a strictly human pursuit. I am simply explaining the biology

 

[grannymh]

How old do you think the current human genome is?

When did the interbreeding stop?

Are you arguing that the humans we can identify with appeared on the scene relatively recently?

The key phrase here is “humans we can identify with”. Now this is where the conversation makes a sharp turn. What is the “human difference”? Language, art, rationality, piety?

And what changes in DNA allowed the “human difference” to happen?

As you can surmise, I don’t think there is a smooth, uninterrupted continuum of small, insignificant mutations between “us” and the other animals. There is, instead, a radical discontinuity.

We have now entered the glorious realm of philosophy.

The philosophical definition of a human being would include human nature which is an unique union of the material (genes, etc.) anatomy and the spiritual (rational and will) soul. The human person is not two natures pasted together; rather their union is a single nature.

Natural science can study the material anatomy, but it cannot put the spiritual soul under its microscope. But that does not exclude spiritual reality which can be known by the tools of reason, self reflection, logical evaluation, and analytical thought. These tools are part of human nature – the human being one sees in the mirror.

 

[levinas12]

Why do you say it has remained essentially unchanged? People are on average almost a foot taller than a couple thousand years ago. Other physical attributes have changed too.

I don’t deny that there is a huge difference between humans and pother animals. Philosophy for one is a strictly human pursuit. I am simply explaining the biology

The essence of what it means to be human has not changed.

You mention a change in height. As Aristotle would say, height is an accident, not part of the essence. So this change is not part of what defines the “human being” as such.

This distinction between essence and accident is a philosophical one but it is indispensable to biology. Without it, it would be impossible to classify living beings (or even distinguish between living and non-living beings).

You say there is a big difference between us and other animals. How would you describe this difference? And what kind of relationship exists between the human genome and this difference?