Denisovans

  • Thread starter Thread starter Faith1960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Faith1960 said:
That we come from a group of humans or “Adams” rather than one man and one woman Is there another definition?
Click to expand...
There is a technical difference.

Polygenism is not an established group of true humans. Rather it refers to human anatomies originating from multiple genetic sources, i.e., multiple ancient genetic beings, through a natural biological process over many centuries. Technically, scientific language can interpret as “human” any soulless anatomy walking on two legs.
 
Faith1960 said:
That we come from a group of humans or “Adams” rather than one man and one woman Is there another definition?
Click to expand...
Polygenism could mean that different populations of *Homo erectus, *separated geographically and not interbreeding, all somehow simultaneously and in parallel evolved into Homo sapiens.

And this definition of polygenism could still be consistent with Catholic teaching, because it could be the case (though perhaps unlikely) that Adam/Eve would be scientifically classified as Homo erectus.
 
Ahimsa said:
Polygenism could mean that different populations of *Homo erectus, *separated geographically and not interbreeding, all somehow simultaneously and in parallel evolved into Homo sapiens.

And this definition of polygenism could still be consistent with Catholic teaching, because it could be the case (though perhaps unlikely) that Adam/Eve would be scientifically classified as Homo erectus.
Click to expand...
What you are referring to is an older theory about human origin. Regardless of geographic locations, Catholicism does not allow any type of poly-origin because that opposes the monogenism of human nature, yours and mine.
 
grannymh said:
What you are referring to is an older theory about human origin. Regardless of geographic locations, Catholicism does not allow any type of poly-origin because that opposes the monogenism of human nature, yours and mine.
Click to expand...
The scenario I presented would not be poly-origin, because Adam and Eve would be the original Homo erectus individuals who gave rise to other Homo erectus as well as Homo sapiens.
 
Ahimsa said:
The scenario I presented would not be poly-origin, because Adam and Eve would be the original Homo erectus individuals who gave rise to other Homo erectus as well as Homo sapiens.
Click to expand...
Adam and Eve were not parents of pre-humans.
 
grannymh said:
Adam and Eve were not parents of pre-humans.
Click to expand...
You’re assuming Homo erectus was not “human”. The Church has not defined which species of Homo is “human” or not “human”.
 
Ahimsa said:
You’re assuming Homo erectus was not “human”. The Church has not defined which species of Homo is “human” or not “human”.
Click to expand...
Yes, my assumption is that pre-humans are not human.

Catholicism has defined human nature which is what you are today. Your nature is the same as Adam’s descendants. Science, according to its own definition, only considers your decomposing anatomy. Thus, there is a dilemma caused by different viewpoints.

It is my humble observation, that there is no reason for the Catholic Church to define which species of* Homo* is “human” or not “human”. Catholicism considers humanity as its own separate species.
 
grannymh said:
Catholicism has defined human nature which is what you are today. Your nature is the same as Adam’s descendants. Science, according to its own definition, only considers your decomposing anatomy.
Click to expand...
Which is exactly my point. The Church defines “human” in spiritual terms; science defines Homo sapiens, and Homo sp., in empirical terms.

In addition, in science (anthropology, paleontology), the genus *Homo *(from the Latin for “human”) is “human”.
 
Ahimsa said:
Which is exactly my point. The Church defines “human” in spiritual terms; science defines Homo sapiens, and Homo sp., in empirical terms.

In addition, in science (anthropology, paleontology), the genus *Homo *(from the Latin for “human”) is “human”.
Click to expand...
Not the right point.

Catholicism defines the human person as one nature, material and spiritual. Catholicism does not separate out the spiritual.

“Human” from the Latin is defined by both science and religion. Science as a reality and religion as a reality is **not **a *either-or" proposition.

From what I have read on other threads, some, not all, people do not understand the concept of both - and. For them, something is either something *or *something else.
For some reason, it is difficult for some, not all, people to see something as having more than one idea or more than one viewpoint.
 
grannymh said:
Not the right point.

Catholicism defines the human person as one nature, material and spiritual. Catholicism does not separate out the spiritual.
Click to expand...
True, but Catholicism doesn’t define what type of “material” (e.g., genetic material) is necessary for some entity to be defined as “human”. There is no list of nucleotide sequences that is infallibly declared to constitute a “human”. Catholicism doesn’t define human as the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens.
 
Ahimsa said:
True, but Catholicism doesn’t define what type of “material” (e.g., genetic material) is necessary for some entity to be defined as “human”. There is no list of nucleotide sequences that is infallibly declared to constitute a “human”. Catholicism doesn’t define human as the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens.
Click to expand...
My apology, but this is getting silly. I really doubt that in order for you to recognize a fellow human being, you would need to carry with you a human anatomy textbook with lots of illustrations.:rolleyes:
 
I just found this article on a Catholic website, Catholic online. It confirms what secular news says – that the Denisovans and Neanderthals interbred with modern man but doesn’t explain how this can be reconciled with monogenism vs polygenism.

catholic.org/green/story.php?id=43487
 
grannymh said:
My apology, but this is getting silly. I really doubt that in order for you to recognize a fellow human being, you would need to carry with you a human anatomy textbook with lots of illustrations.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
As long as someone has a physical body and an immortal soul, that person is “human”, right? The physical body could be that of an alien from Mars, but if the soul is immortal, it’s “human”, correct?🙂
 
Faith1960 said:
I just found this article on a Catholic website, Catholic online. It confirms what secular news says – that the Denisovans and Neanderthals interbred with modern man but doesn’t explain how this can be reconciled with monogenism vs polygenism.

catholic.org/green/story.php?id=43487
Click to expand...
The first thing which has to be considered is that modern man refers to genes not human nature. While I love science, especially some of its “theories”, I respect its limitations.

In some research, the term modern man has given way to modern genetic man. One of the original terms for modern man was anatomically modern man. None of these terms refer to the complete human person which includes the spiritual soul.

The next thing which needs to be remembered is that science, by definition, does not examine your complete human nature which is the same human nature God created in Adam. God directly creating the spiritual soul is a crucial belief. This direct creation of our soul comes from God and not from polygenism.

It is common sense that anatomies which are built to walk on two legs would have similar genes. It is common sense that animal anatomies have genes which fight off various infections. It is common sense that our material anatomy would be similar to other material anatomies. It should be obvious that some of our material genes could come from similar ancient material (non-human) beings. Recall that how God formed our material anatomy is not a crucial belief. God creating the soul directly, that is, the soul is not produced by genetics, is a crucial belief.

Once, it is realized that science is talking about only anatomies which rot away, it does not make any difference how many subhumans mate with each other.

In Catholic terminology, monogenism refers to the one source of the complete human nature which you and I have. Polygenism refers only to genetic sources for material anatomies. In regard to your complete human nature, polygenism skips God.

Monogenism insures the unity of humanity. Polygenism, as multiple sources, is part of the reasons for animal and plant diversity.

Monogenism insures that Christ hung bleeding on a cross for all people.

Monogenism vs. polygenism either recognizes the existence of God or denies the existence of God in our human life. In the Catholic faith, monogenism recognizes that God is not limited by the material world. This does not imply that somehow science is bad. Science must be respected for the good it has accomplished. What is implied is that science, itself, is limited to the material/physical creation. If one wants to understand one’s own human nature, one has to recognize that one’s nature is supernatural in that it unites both the material world and the spiritual world.

Just because science does not examine God under the proverbial microscope, that is no reason to eliminate God from the process of human creation. The fact that there are many people who do not believe in God has no power to eliminate God. God exists independently of people’s convictions.

The unanswered question is when did Adam, the first fully-complete human person, live. Because we do not have an exact date is no reason to eliminate the spiritual soul from human nature. One of the results of applying non-human animal principles (such as polygenism) to human beings is that the concept of a spiritual soul is thrown out.

Catholics believe in Divine Revelation protected by the Holy Spirit through the centuries. Our basic belief in the creative power of God is professed each Sunday when the community proclaims the Nicene Creed. This creed begins:" We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen." emphasis mine.

Practically speaking, it is not really necessary to know exactly when Adam lived. It is extremely necessary to know his complete human nature. Because of Catholic monogenism, you and I are assured that we have his marvelous nature which enables us to share in God’s own life through knowledge and love.

Admittedly, it is very difficult to hold on to our faith in Jesus as God and Savior when we are bombarded with research about material anatomies of many different kinds of archaic beings.

Monogenism assures us that our material anatomy is the one with the spiritual soul because we descended from the singular person of Adam.
 
grannymh said:
The first thing which has to be considered is that modern man refers to genes not human nature. While I love science, especially some of its “theories”, I respect its limitations. .
Click to expand...
This thread, in its original post, discusses the material with which God made Man. Genesis teaches that Man is not just the material, the dust of the Earth, but also the spirit, the Breath of God. This occurred within the progenitors of the species and is Catholic dogma. Science can not cross the line into divine revelation and attempt to explain that which is outside the purview of science. Likewise, the Church can not define scientific issues.

Science describes the dust, and the Church describes the breath.

Could people have mated with other species after God’s intervention? It is possible, and it is possible that this too is indicated in Genesis.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top