Genesis details

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kmon23
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If I understand your clarification, you are saying that the other ancestors (other than Adam and Eve) contributing the genetic diversity came before Adam and Eve, rather than being contemporaries of Adam and Eve or living after Adam and Eve (and interbreeding with the descendants of Adam and Eve).

If my latest understanding of your suggestion is correct, then I guess I don’t understand how that genetic diversity got transmitted to Adam and Eve’s descendants.

Maybe I’m just not understanding your scenario.
 
cfauster said:
If I understand your clarification, you are saying that the other ancestors (other than Adam and Eve) contributing the genetic diversity came before Adam and Eve, rather than being contemporaries of Adam and Eve or living after Adam and Eve (and interbreeding with the descendants of Adam and Eve).

If my latest understanding of your suggestion is correct, then I guess I don’t understand how that genetic diversity got transmitted to Adam and Eve’s descendants.

Maybe I’m just not understanding your scenario.
Click to expand...
Interbreeding is out of the question.

The important factor is the pre-history of the human body, as evolved from sub-human species, which transmits the allelic diversity. The anatomical types like humans, though not true humans, may be seen to continue existing for a time, even contemporaneous with the first true humans. Read Edward Feser’s two-part discussion of which I linked to in my previous post, as there is much to be considered beyond my brief blurbs.

Also, I highly recommend reading Dr. Bonnette’s web site Origin of the Human Species. That is also the title of his book, which is in print and provides a very informative discussion.
 
Kmon23 said:
Although these are three question with long explanations, I think they should only result in short answers. So I put these three in one thread.
  1. The Church teaches that we have a lineage to Adam and Eve, as stated in Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis
  2. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]
However my question is whether this is stating we have an exclusive origin from Adam and Eve or that we have an origin through Adam and Eve. (when I say “human species,” I mean a biologically a human being or of a close relative that does not have a soul since only Adam and Eve and their descendants had souls)

What I do know this rejects is the idea that some have an origin outside of Adam and Eve (polygenism). However, does this also reject the idea that we have a lineage from Adam and Eve but also from other human species?

For example. Adam and Eve had a child. The child had relations with another human species. They have a baby. The baby has its ancestry tied to Adam and Eve. Is this possible within Pope Pius XII’s encyclical on defining monogeism? Or do all humans today have EXCLUSIVE ancestry to ONLY Adam and Eve? I ask this because I’ve always considered Neanderthals to not be truly humans, however Europeans and others have Neanderthal DNA, implying that there was interbreeding between regular humans and Neanderthals. Unless, Neanderthals are descendants of Adam and Eve?
Click to expand...
The following is an interesting take on the matter:

tofspot.blogspot.com/2011/09/adam-and-eve-and-ted-and-alice.html
 
Thanks for the link. Indeed, Ed Feser cites Kemp, and is proposing the same concept. With each generation of ancestors going backwards in time, we rapidly increase the number of ancestors: two parents, four grandparents, eight great-grandparents, etc. Go back far enough, we all have umpteen ancestors and we all share those ancestors (we’re all related to some degree).

If I understand Feser and Kemp correctly, all that is required for the theology is that 1) Adam and Eve be among those common ancestors and be the first ones God gave whatever it is that distinguishes humans from non-humans, and 2) whatever that special something is that makes us human, no matter how tiny the fraction of one’s genetic material might be that one inherits from Adam and/or Eve - and Feser says it could be zero, I think - we nonetheless still inherit that special metaphysical something that makes us human, as well as original sin. More precisely, we inherit something metaphysical that then triggers God’s direct infusion of a human soul into each conception, and God keeps track so God infuses souls only into those whose lineage connects with Adam and Eve which, after some number of generations, would be everyone. Today all members of the interbreeding biological species we call humans can count Adam and Eve as among our many ancestors, and we all share other common ancestors too that - if you go far enough back - were not human.

Am I understanding the position you (and Feser, and Kemp) are proposing?
 
ngill09 said:
Scientists, not atheists. That is not an equivocation I would think you want to make unless you want to further the growing idea that religion is incompatible with science.

The scientific facts are these: Humans undeniably bear the markers, in our genetics and biology, of common ancestry with other species of animals, particularly and most recently the great apes. An example of this is the clear markers that our second chromosome is the result of the fusion of two chromosomes found in the other great apes.

So the real choice is this:
  1. Try to stick to the simple and obvious interpretation of Genesis, which strongly conflicts with scientific findings, and deny everything found by science.
  2. Try to find a valid interpretation of both scripture and the scientific facts that allows the two to agree.
Click to expand...
There is no conflict between science and religion. The conflict is between religion and those who seek to undermine it.
Most scientists are atheists. Their research cannot be but biased because of their pre-existing beliefs.

You don’t need genetic markers and the like to realize the similarity man has with the rest of life on the planet. We have lungs, a heart, liver, kidneys, mammary glands, sex organs. Basically, there is absolutely nothing new in genetics that hasn’t been known for many thousands of years as it applies to this discussion. The chromosomal markers you bring up fit into this same category.

One problem currently is that we are being told there is something new (the genotype. when the phenotype has been demonstrating the same thing all along), and that it somehow shows that Genesis cannot be true.
The fact is that very few people do the research and the general population takes it on faith that the “scientists” have got it straight.

Genetics and anthropology cannot ultimately provide us with an answer because they cannot recognize the existence of the soul.
You don’t believe it either, so you will have difficulty understanding what I am getting at.
Researchers, because they don’t and can’t get at the soul, end up looking for genetic markers hoping that, like Hansel and Gretel’s bread crumbs, they will be led back in time to our origins.
Clearly this is superior to, but along the same lines as classifying by gross morphology.

I am not sure what the analysis of the data involves, but many assumptions have to be made including:
  • matter behaves (mutation rates etc) now as it did in the past
  • evolution (being a scientific fact) means that changes occurred along certain lines
    This becomes circular as the findings will reflect the assumptions.
    Then there are all the problems inherent in making an interpretation.
    Nowhere in the journals would they speak about God’s creation. They can’t, and people reading about this will assume He is not.
God is more obvious to me that anything else. You are not a person of faith, your choices are not my choices.

sigh
 
I don’t think you understand, it’s not just morphological similarities or similarities in genes.

Ken Miller (a Catholic) explains one of the more clear pieces of evidence of common ancestry here: youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk.

How would you explain the existence of fused ape chromosomes in the human genome?

And by the way, this complaint that scientists have to assume things always behaved they way they do now is naive. Because there are multiple lines of inquiry and evidence, if one factor varied over time, you would be able to detect that. The only way that is a valid objection is if you’re proposing that every factor varied at the same rate, and that’s getting very desperate.
 
I think we need to get away from this idea that Adam and Eve were inferior to modern humans. They possessed preternatural gifts and pristine genes. Modern day humans have none of these.
 
cfauster said:
If I understand Feser and Kemp correctly, all that is required for the theology is that 1) Adam and Eve be among those common ancestors and be the first ones God gave whatever it is that distinguishes humans from non-humans, and 2) whatever that special something is that makes us human, no matter how tiny the fraction of one’s genetic material might be that one inherits from Adam and/or Eve - and Feser says it could be zero, I think - we nonetheless still inherit that special metaphysical something that makes us human, as well as original sin. More precisely, we inherit something metaphysical that then triggers God’s direct infusion of a human soul into each conception, and God keeps track so God infuses souls only into those whose lineage connects with Adam and Eve which, after some number of generations, would be everyone. Today all members of the interbreeding biological species we call humans can count Adam and Eve as among our many ancestors, and we all share other common ancestors too that - if you go far enough back - were not human.

Am I understanding the position you (and Feser, and Kemp) are proposing?
Click to expand...
Yes, that is right. This account is the most coherent means I have seen for reconciling Christian doctrine with modern knowledge of biology.

I might tweak this a bit with regard to original sin. God granted Adam and Eve a special grace of awareness of his presence and complete self-control. (Through her Immaculate Conception, we Catholics believe Mary received the same grace.) This grace was to be bequeathed to all of their descendants. Through their sin, they lost this grace, as did their descendants. This is original sin in a nutshell.

Gabriel
 
buffalo said:
I think we need to get away from this idea that Adam and Eve were inferior to modern humans. They possessed preternatural gifts and pristine genes. Modern day humans have none of these.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by “pristine genes”? Didn’t they have a chromosome formed by two fused ape chromosomes?
 
buffalo said:
No. That seems to be going by the wayside.
Click to expand...
Well we have one of those, so did we not get our genes from Adam and Eve, or were their genes overpowered by the humans who do have common ancestors with apes?
 
ngill09 said:
Well we have one of those, so did we not get our genes from Adam and Eve, or were their genes overpowered by the humans who do have common ancestors with apes?
Click to expand...
Human Chromosome Fusion Debunked

“Alleged Human Chromosome 2 “Fusion Site” Encodes an Active DNA Binding Domain Inside a Complex and Highly Expressed Gene—Negating Fusion”

ABSTRACT:
A major argument supposedly supporting human evolution from a common ancestor with chimpanzees is the “chromosome 2 fusion model” in which ape chromosomes 2A and 2B purportedly fused end-to-end, forming human chromosome 2. This idea is postulated despite the fact that all known fusions in extant mammals involve satellite DNA and breaks at or near centromeres. In addition, researchers have noted that the hypothetical telomeric end-to-end signature of the fusion is very small (~800 bases) and highly degenerate (ambiguous) given the supposed 3 to 6 million years of divergence from a common ancestor. In this report, it is also shown that the purported fusion site (read in the minus strand orientation) is a functional DNA binding domain inside the first intron of the DDX11L2 regulatory RNA helicase gene, which encodes several transcript variants expressed in at least 255 different cell and/or tissue types. Specifically, the purported fusion site encodes the second active transcription factor binding domain in the DDX11L2 gene that coincides with transcriptionally active histone marks and open active chromatin. Annotated DDX11L2 gene transcripts suggest complex post-transcriptional regulation through a variety of microRNA binding sites. Chromosome fusions would not be expected to form complex multi-exon, alternatively spliced functional genes. This clear genetic evidence, combined with the fact that a previously documented 614 Kb genomic region surrounding the purported fusion site lacks synteny (gene correspondence) with chimpanzee on chromosomes 2A and 2B (supposed fusion sites of origin), thoroughly refutes the claim that human chromosome 2 is the result of an ancestral telomeric end-to-end fusion. - See more at: designed-dna.org/blog/files/3e06d2e493f6210f9ceaaf555397ec29-86.php#sthash.s1omrTYR.dpuf
 
buffalo said:
Human Chromosome Fusion Debunked

“Alleged Human Chromosome 2 “Fusion Site” Encodes an Active DNA Binding Domain Inside a Complex and Highly Expressed Gene—Negating Fusion”

ABSTRACT:
A major argument supposedly supporting human evolution from a common ancestor with chimpanzees is the “chromosome 2 fusion model” in which ape chromosomes 2A and 2B purportedly fused end-to-end, forming human chromosome 2. This idea is postulated despite the fact that all known fusions in extant mammals involve satellite DNA and breaks at or near centromeres. In addition, researchers have noted that the hypothetical telomeric end-to-end signature of the fusion is very small (~800 bases) and highly degenerate (ambiguous) given the supposed 3 to 6 million years of divergence from a common ancestor. In this report, it is also shown that the purported fusion site (read in the minus strand orientation) is a functional DNA binding domain inside the first intron of the DDX11L2 regulatory RNA helicase gene, which encodes several transcript variants expressed in at least 255 different cell and/or tissue types. Specifically, the purported fusion site encodes the second active transcription factor binding domain in the DDX11L2 gene that coincides with transcriptionally active histone marks and open active chromatin. Annotated DDX11L2 gene transcripts suggest complex post-transcriptional regulation through a variety of microRNA binding sites. Chromosome fusions would not be expected to form complex multi-exon, alternatively spliced functional genes. This clear genetic evidence, combined with the fact that a previously documented 614 Kb genomic region surrounding the purported fusion site lacks synteny (gene correspondence) with chimpanzee on chromosomes 2A and 2B (supposed fusion sites of origin), thoroughly refutes the claim that human chromosome 2 is the result of an ancestral telomeric end-to-end fusion. - See more at: designed-dna.org/blog/files/3e06d2e493f6210f9ceaaf555397ec29-86.php#sthash.s1omrTYR.dpuf
Click to expand...
It’s the word of a paper published in Answers in Genesis vs Roman Catholic and renowned biologist Ken Miller as well as the entire scientific community.
 
ngill09 said:
It’s the word of a paper published in Answers in Genesis vs Roman Catholic and renowned biologist Ken Miller as well as the entire scientific community.
Click to expand...
Miller got it wrong. This is even before the paper I cited.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=560

This animated gif shows how even if the empirical genetic evidence mandates a chromosomal fusion event, this doesn’t tell you anything about whether or not humans share ancestry with apes. The “Separate Ancestry” slide shows that the chromosomal fusion event may have simply taken place in a separately-designed basic type which, initially, had 48 chromosomes. The “Common Ancestry” slide shows how the chromosomal fusion event may have also taken place in a line which led back to a hypothetical common ancestor of humans and modern apes. The point is that all we have is evidence for a fusion event, but that fusion event is equally compatible with either separate ancestry from apes, or common ancestry with apes. The fusion event itself does not provide any independent evidence for common ancestry with apes. To argue that it is evidence for common ancestry requires special pleading. - See more at: evolutionnews.org/2005/10/and_the_miller_told_his_tale_ken_miller_001067.html#sthash.wBLNKKOO.dpuf
 
buffalo said:
Miller got it wrong. This is even before the paper I cited.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=560

This animated gif shows how even if the empirical genetic evidence mandates a chromosomal fusion event, this doesn’t tell you anything about whether or not humans share ancestry with apes. The “Separate Ancestry” slide shows that the chromosomal fusion event may have simply taken place in a separately-designed basic type which, initially, had 48 chromosomes. The “Common Ancestry” slide shows how the chromosomal fusion event may have also taken place in a line which led back to a hypothetical common ancestor of humans and modern apes. The point is that all we have is evidence for a fusion event, but that fusion event is equally compatible with either separate ancestry from apes, or common ancestry with apes. The fusion event itself does not provide any independent evidence for common ancestry with apes. To argue that it is evidence for common ancestry requires special pleading. - See more at: evolutionnews.org/2005/10/and_the_miller_told_his_tale_ken_miller_001067.html#sthash.wBLNKKOO.dpuf
Click to expand...
Except that the fused chromosome corresponds to two ape chromosomes.
 
buffalo said:
Human Chromosome Fusion Debunked

“Alleged Human Chromosome 2 “Fusion Site” Encodes an Active DNA Binding Domain Inside a Complex and Highly Expressed Gene—Negating Fusion”

ABSTRACT:
A major argument supposedly supporting human evolution from a common ancestor with chimpanzees is the “chromosome 2 fusion model” in which ape chromosomes 2A and 2B purportedly fused end-to-end, forming human chromosome 2. This idea is postulated despite the fact that all known fusions in extant mammals involve satellite DNA and breaks at or near centromeres. In addition, researchers have noted that the hypothetical telomeric end-to-end signature of the fusion is very small (~800 bases) and highly degenerate (ambiguous) given the supposed 3 to 6 million years of divergence from a common ancestor. In this report, it is also shown that the purported fusion site (read in the minus strand orientation) is a functional DNA binding domain inside the first intron of the DDX11L2 regulatory RNA helicase gene, which encodes several transcript variants expressed in at least 255 different cell and/or tissue types. Specifically, the purported fusion site encodes the second active transcription factor binding domain in the DDX11L2 gene that coincides with transcriptionally active histone marks and open active chromatin. Annotated DDX11L2 gene transcripts suggest complex post-transcriptional regulation through a variety of microRNA binding sites. Chromosome fusions would not be expected to form complex multi-exon, alternatively spliced functional genes. This clear genetic evidence, combined with the fact that a previously documented 614 Kb genomic region surrounding the purported fusion site lacks synteny (gene correspondence) with chimpanzee on chromosomes 2A and 2B (supposed fusion sites of origin), thoroughly refutes the claim that human chromosome 2 is the result of an ancestral telomeric end-to-end fusion. - See more at: designed-dna.org/blog/files/3e06d2e493f6210f9ceaaf555397ec29-86.php#sthash.s1omrTYR.dpuf
Click to expand...
I read the paper. Long non-coding RNAs, small non-coding RNAs such as microRNAs, RNA helicases, functional pseudogenes, synteny of genes when comparing chromosomes of different species, possible transcription factor binding sites, introns and exons - all of these are very interesting to me (I happen to be a molecular geneticist). Based on the data cited by the paper itself (data all coming from other sources - no new data are reported in the paper), the paper’s conclusions make no sense at all. It was published in the journal of the author’s employer (a young-earth creationist organization), and the only two articles I could find that cite it are also published by young-earth creationist organizations (and one of the citing articles is by the same single author citing his own single-authored paper).

Folks, I understand the motivation of the scientists who work for Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research and similar organizations, but unless one understands the scientific facts referred to in their articles - facts discovered through work done by others and published in peer-reviewed journals - one will not realize that the conclusions the creationist authors claim simply do not follow at all from the facts to which they refer. Again, it’s confusing because they cite bona fide articles reporting genuine data published in non-creationist peer-reviewed journals, but their conclusions are head-scratching non sequiturs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top