Genesis details

[buffalo]

The author claims that the features of the chromosome 2 fusion region “disprove” that a chromosome fusion occurred there, but in fact the evidence of fusion is overwhelming and is now stronger, not weaker, than when first discovered.

The paper claims that non-coding RNA expression, chromatin modifications, and potential transcription factor binding sites within the region are all inconsistent with a history of fusion. That makes no sense at all.

If someone wants to understand the kind of data cited in the paper, I recommend a solid example of such work, done without any “axe to grind”:
Characterization of Human Pseudogene-Derived Non-Coding RNAs for Functional Potential

Interstitial telomeric sequences (ITSs) are not located at the exact evolutionary breakpoints in primates.

Abstract

Although their function has not yet been clearly elucidated, interstitial telomeric sequences (ITSs) have been cytogenetically associated with chromosomal reorganizations, fragile sites, and recombination hotspots. In this paper, we show that ITSs are not located at the exact evolutionary breakpoints of the inversions between human and chimpanzee and between human and rhesus macaque chromosomes. We proved that ITSs are not signs of repair in the breakpoints of the chromosome reorganizations analyzed. We found ITSs in the region (0.7-2.7 Mb) flanking one of the two breakpoints in all the inversions assessed. The presence of ITSs in those locations is not by chance. They are short (up to 7.83 repeats) and almost perfect (82.5-97.1% matches). The ITSs are conserved in the species compared, showing that they were present before the reorganizations occurred.

 

[edwest2]

Interstitial telomeric sequences (ITSs) are not located at the exact evolutionary breakpoints in primates.

Abstract

Although their function has not yet been clearly elucidated, interstitial telomeric sequences (ITSs) have been cytogenetically associated with chromosomal reorganizations, fragile sites, and recombination hotspots. In this paper, we show that ITSs are not located at the exact evolutionary breakpoints of the inversions between human and chimpanzee and between human and rhesus macaque chromosomes. We proved that ITSs are not signs of repair in the breakpoints of the chromosome reorganizations analyzed. We found ITSs in the region (0.7-2.7 Mb) flanking one of the two breakpoints in all the inversions assessed. The presence of ITSs in those locations is not by chance. They are short (up to 7.83 repeats) and almost perfect (82.5-97.1% matches). The ITSs are conserved in the species compared, showing that they were present before the reorganizations occurred.

Thank you for providing this.

Peace,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

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

As this shows a fusion event could have occurred independently.

If this event happened would it have survived in successive populations? Should there be humans among us with 48 chromosomes?

It could be we were created with 46 chromosomes that have the visible characteristics we see and designed function. In addition, chromosome 2 contains 150,000 more base pairs. Further, the alignment is not there.

A Chinese man has 44 chromosomes. He is normal in every way.

 

[grannymh]

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?

Getting back to the OP …

A basic clarification is that there is only one human species according to Divine Revelation and that species has a nature which is both biological and spiritual.

The children of Adam and Eve would have exclusive ancestry personally to Adam and Eve. After that, children would be descendant from their parents who would have Adam and Eve as ancestors.

1. I know the Genesis account does not have to be viewed literally as Church teaching (besides certain specifics such as original set of parents). However, in regards to Adam being made by God, can this be viewed as Adam being born from human species parents, but that only with Adam’s conception that God gave him a soul, hence making Adam the beginning of true humans (with souls).

The human species means that a human person’s nature is an unique unification of both the material world and the spiritual world. Natural science is only concerned with the material/physical world; therefore a spiritual rational soul is not in their vocabulary. Not being in the vocabulary of the material/physical realm of science does not mean that the spiritual soul is non-existent. (CCC, 355-357; CCC, 364-366)

I know the church also accepts theistic evolution, but whether it’s acceptable to see Adam being created via evolution or whether his creation is completely independent.

Theistic evolution has now *evolved *into numerous concepts, some of which are incompatible with Catholic doctrines.

1. God does not change in what is right and wrong.

A very important clarification is that God determines what is morally right and what is morally wrong.

 

[cfauster]

Interstitial telomeric sequences (ITSs) are not located at the exact evolutionary breakpoints in primates.

Abstract

Although their function has not yet been clearly elucidated, interstitial telomeric sequences (ITSs) have been cytogenetically associated with chromosomal reorganizations, fragile sites, and recombination hotspots. In this paper, we show that ITSs are not located at the exact evolutionary breakpoints of the inversions between human and chimpanzee and between human and rhesus macaque chromosomes. We proved that ITSs are not signs of repair in the breakpoints of the chromosome reorganizations analyzed. We found ITSs in the region (0.7-2.7 Mb) flanking one of the two breakpoints in all the inversions assessed. The presence of ITSs in those locations is not by chance. They are short (up to 7.83 repeats) and almost perfect (82.5-97.1% matches). The ITSs are conserved in the species compared, showing that they were present before the reorganizations occurred.

Good paper. The authors distinguish between the interstitial telomeric sequences (ITSs) near inversions on the one hand, and the ITS where two chromosomes fused to form human chromosome 2. Regarding the latter, all the authors say about it is this:
“However, to our knowledge, only the head-to-head ITS located in the human 2q13 region, which is a relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion, is precisely associated with an evolutionary breakpoint (Ijdo et al., 1991).”

Indeed, the 2q13 ITS obviously is very precisely associated with an evolutionary breakpoint. Indiana University hosts a good website for getting directly to the evidence:
indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/c.fus.les.html

 

[grannymh]

Good paper. The authors distinguish between the interstitial telomeric sequences (ITSs) near inversions on the one hand, and the ITS where two chromosomes fused to form human chromosome 2. Regarding the latter, all the authors say about it is this:
“However, to our knowledge, only the head-to-head ITS located in the human 2q13 region, which is a relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion, is precisely associated with an evolutionary breakpoint (Ijdo et al., 1991).”

Indeed, the 2q13 ITS obviously is very precisely associated with an evolutionary breakpoint. Indiana University hosts a good website for getting directly to the evidence:
indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/c.fus.les.html

More details about those Genesis details … under attack.

As senior guest student in a John Hawks class, I watched him compare strands on a website. I was amazed at the simplicity and complexity of AGTC. Shifting from a “ladder” concept of species, shared genes between material critters, including human anatomies, are amazing and questionable.

Francisco J. Ayala’s 1995 paper introduced me to the genetic problem regarding human origin. Ignoring Ayala’s fascinating comments, we should note the emphasis change from 1995 to 2009.

Notice the word “associated” in the post 85 link. Today, genetic research determines relationships and associations within the human genome. Common ancestor and population theories are now automatic presumptions. Natural science is a gift from God benefiting society especially in the medical arena. However, we still have to keep in mind that the Catholic doctrine of monogenism has not changed regardless of how many science presumptions intersect with it.

Stepping back for a moment, what is it that we are both seeing? My personal answer is that we are seeing the material world for what it really is and we are learning how it operates. Our material world is simple, complex, amazing, and full of questions. Simple in the sense that we can flat out observe our material world. As a non-theist once pointed out – our universe is intelligible. If you do not agree about “simple” that is o.k.

Many current hypotheses deal with material world questions such as why can this person fight a particular disease and why someone else cannot. Possible answers can relate to a version (allele) of HLA-DRB1 gene which has a role in the bigger picture of immunity. When populations increase, the possibility exists that some individual will have a “tailored” allele to aid the fight against a new parasite or disease-causing microbe. Often the designer of healing drugs considers discovered genetic information about an allele. This possibility of a new allele is not confined to a specific historical period.

My take home message, from the above small example of genetic diversity, is that no matter how long or how intense a study of a particular gene is, a conclusion referring to HLA-DRB1 alleles and humanity’s origin is only probable. The time frame alone cannot be verified by hard data. It is an estimate based on various genetic and paleoanthropology theories. Dr. Ayala’s conclusions remain probable because there is always the possibility that some other series of minute mutations, resulting in additional alleles, has taken place in an unknown way in a different time frame. Something like the Black Swans found in Australia.

What you as the scientist and me as “Curious George” see in common is the same, one and only, material world we live in. Being material accounts for our anatomies having similar traits with non-human beings. We are part of a vertebrate classification which eats for nourishment. We are the species which invented microwave ovens so we could eat after the restaurants are closed.

When we follow the principles of practical logic, the scientific (inductive) method, our conclusions are based on material evidence. Fortunately, science research is technically easy since we have simple material evidence such as human genes now that the Human Genome Project has been completed… :tsktsk:yes, that statement is facetious. Sorry, I could not resist a small jab at “all the warehouses filled with genetic research” against two loving parents who started our species which eventually invented “fast food chains.”

Regardless of who we are, we still live in a material world which includes the dark recesses of human history. It may not seem probable, but Adam and Eve, two great details of Genesis, are definitely possible. Instead of looking for a historical kind of point or population when vertebrates diverged into separate species, we should realize that a complete dogmatic universal negative is not realistic going millions of years backwards. It is logical to posit that even individual mutation rates of various separate species could have varied at different times. We simply cannot know every change on earth which would affect human development. We can know, by present observation, is that the human species is different in kind from all other species. This difference is assured by inheritance from two sole real fully-complete human persons at the dawn of human history.

Diseases can continue to mutate, that is, become “immune” to antibiotics. And likewise, the human immunity system is not set in stone

 

[cfauster]

Thank you for your thoughtful post, grannymh.

I think the best one can hope for from any forum is that different views be articulated as clearly as possible, without “spin” and without antagonism or hostility. I think you do that.

Some qualities of your approach remind me of Dr. Todd Wood.

Dr. Wood is an interesting individual who acknowledges that evolution (including the origin of humans and other contemporary primates from now-extinct ancestors different from any currently living primates) is good science. Because of his religious views (he happens to be a young-earth creationist), he has made a conscious choice to reject evolution despite the fact (which he readily acknowledges) that the evidence is not on his side, at least not now. Dr. Wood works hard to counter misrepresentation and miscommunication of scientific evidence on origins, even if the accurate presentation of currently-available evidence supports evolution.

Dr. Wood shows that misrepresenting or denying scientific evidence is not the only approach available to those who must reject evolution (or some parts of it) for religious reasons.

Of course, I disagree with Dr. Wood on whether evolution is compatible with Christianity, but I sure respect the integrity of his approach.

A blog post where he explains his approach is at:
toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Dr. Wood shows that misrepresenting or denying scientific evidence is not the only approach available to those who must reject evolution (or some parts of it) for religious reasons. . .

The issue I have is not with “scientific evidence” but how those pieces of the puzzle are put together.

The process is like running a simulation; you determine the relationships between variables and plug in the numbers.
This used to be done on a gross level on the basis of bone sizes and shapes.
Now the morphology has to do with an analysis of chromosomes and complex molecules, particularly DNA.
When you are trying to develop a history from these present day remnants, you have to have some idea as to how they behaved and what would have influenced them.
Assumptions are made to arrive at the “evidence”.

Among these “scientific” assumptions, what will not be included are that:

• God is all powerful and that it is His Word that created and maintains reality
• God can move creation more simply than I, analogously, can move my arm
• genetic variability among the first people would be the rule
• mankind must have arisen from two people
• man has a soul
• our earliest ancestors lived ten times longer than we do
• women at the beginning could have had hundreds of kids
  I believe that if you plug in the raw data into this framework, the evidence will confirm Genesis

If, on the other hand, your variables are those in keeping with a:

• materialistic, basically a crude pantheistic, ammoral, non-personal view where all is some form of energy, taking on various forms and behaviours, or
• deistic understanding where God created a clockwork that keeps itself going to some determined or undetermined end,
  then likely you will come up with “evidence” that it took, for example, a group of 5,000 hominids to get humanity going.

I’m going to stick with scripture.
On my death bed, preparing for my last journey, I don’t think this will matter.

 

[edwest2]

This will continue to matter to those who think God did nothing. An individual Adam and individual Eve were our first parents, they are the beginning of Original Sin, which is passed down to all. There is no point in saying the Bible is not a science text and then treating it like one.

As Jesus bore witness to the power of God over death, disease and even rising from the dead Himself, those other ideas about Genesis must be kept under constant attack.

Remember that. God is God. Science, by its own self-defined limits, cannot study God or the soul.

Peace,
Ed

 

[cfauster]

Among these “scientific” assumptions, what will not be included are that:

• God is all powerful and that it is His Word that created and maintains reality
• God can move creation more simply than I, analogously, can move my arm
• man has a soul

Those assumptions are consistent with (though not a necessary part of) any valid approach to science, because they lie outside of science. They are metaphysical, not “scientific,” assumptions. They are not testable by science.

• mankind must have arisen from two people
• our earliest ancestors lived ten times longer than we do
• women at the beginning could have had hundreds of kids

Those assumptions would not lie outside of science because they are potentially testable by science (it’s likely that they would result in certain observable effects that could be assessed, even this many years later, using our material senses). I suspect those three assumptions arise from a particular interpretation of certain parts of the Bible, and/or certain theological doctrines.

• genetic variability among the first people would be the rule

Certainly if the population is large, but not if you are referring to just two people, because each would have just two alleles for each gene.

If, on the other hand, your variables are those in keeping with a:

• materialistic, basically a crude pantheistic, ammoral, non-personal view where all is some form of energy, taking on various forms and behaviours, or
• deistic understanding where God created a clockwork that keeps itself going to some determined or undetermined end,
  then likely you will come up with “evidence” that it took, for example, a group of 5,000 hominids to get humanity going.

Neither of these non-theistic metaphysical assumptions are required to acquire and evaluate scientific evidence. Some non-theists might think such assumptions are necessary for science, but in fact they are not. Don’t confuse scientific explanations with what is being explained. For example, persons (human as well as divine) consist of more than what the scientific method can study!

I’m going to stick with scripture.

Me too, but I’m not going to view scripture and science as mutually exclusive alternatives competing for the same intellectual territory. Rather, I’m going to relate them as complementary domains that can interact fruitfully.

On my death bed, preparing for my last journey, I don’t think this will matter.

Indeed, what’s of truly eternal significance is far beyond these issues.

God bless.

 

[cfauster]

This will continue to matter to those who think God did nothing. An individual Adam and individual Eve were our first parents, they are the beginning of Original Sin, which is passed down to all. There is no point in saying the Bible is not a science text and then treating it like one.

As Jesus bore witness to the power of God over death, disease and even rising from the dead Himself, those other ideas about Genesis must be kept under constant attack.

Remember that. God is God. Science, by its own self-defined limits, cannot study God or the soul.

Peace,
Ed

I agree with your statement: “There is no point in saying the Bible is not a science text and then treating it like one.”
I wonder, however, if I understand what you mean by that. In fact, maybe different meanings different people have for same phrase “the Bible is not a science text” are behind the talking past each other that sometimes happens when discussing science and the Bible. Here are a few possible meanings that I’ve seen, each distinct from the others. Does any one of them match up very well with what you mean, edwest2?

Nothing in the Bible was meant by anyone (neither any human, nor God) to convey facts about the material world.

Nothing in the Bible was meant by God to convey facts about the material world, even if some human Biblical authors might have referred to facts (as they understood them) about the material world.

Some things in the Bible were intended by God to teach factual truths about the material world, and those facts (even if testable by science) should be off-limits to any scientist faithful to the Bible.

 

[Aloysium]

Those assumptions are consistent with (though not a necessary part of) any valid approach to science, because they lie outside of science. They are metaphysical, not “scientific,” assumptions. They are not testable by science. . .

Science is limited in its ability to grasp the entire picture of reality. Among countless other examples, science will never explain how the eucharist is the body of Jesus. It cannot speak about the soul. Its explanation of how we came to be does not encompass the vast possibilities in Reality. God is God. My point is that these untestable assumptions are a key element in understanding the origin of man. Bottom line: science is not giving us truth in this case. (oops, I seem to have inadvertently plagerized)

. . . Certainly if the population is large, but not if you are referring to just two people, because each would have just two alleles for each gene. . .

This assumes that what we see happening now in very controlled situations is what happened then. We know of miracles. Genetic change is not random, but caused by God. This is not provable obviously, but known through the eye of faith.

. . . Neither of these non-theistic metaphysical assumptions are required to acquire and evaluate scientific evidence. Some non-theists might think such assumptions are necessary for science, but in fact they are not. Don’t confuse scientific explanations with what is being explained. For example, persons (human as well as divine) consist of more than what the scientific method can study! . .

I don’t see where I am confusing scientific explanations with what is being explained. I was trying to make this very point - that what is seen as “evidence” is actually an interpretation. I thought I was pretty clear that persons consist of far more than what the scientific method can study. In fact, I would hold that you can only truly know a person when you love them.

. . . I’m not going to view scripture and science as mutually exclusive alternatives competing for the same intellectual territory. Rather, I’m going to relate them as complementary domains that can interact fruitfully. . .

They both address the nature of Reality. I understand that you are speaking about science rather than scientism, which is not complementary with religion.

 

[grannymh]

I agree with your statement: “There is no point in saying the Bible is not a science text and then treating it like one.”
I wonder, however, if I understand what you mean by that. In fact, maybe different meanings different people have for same phrase “the Bible is not a science text” are behind the talking past each other that sometimes happens when discussing science and the Bible. Here are a few possible meanings that I’ve seen, each distinct from the others. Does any one of them match up very well with what you mean, edwest2?

Nothing in the Bible was meant by anyone (neither any human, nor God) to convey facts about the material world.

Nothing in the Bible was meant by God to convey facts about the material world, even if some human Biblical authors might have referred to facts (as they understood them) about the material world.

Some things in the Bible were intended by God to teach factual truths about the material world, and those facts (even if testable by science) should be off-limits to any scientist faithful to the Bible.

Can I add –

While the author of the first three chapters of Genesis was not a Ph.D. scientist, he was capable of employing the first principle of today’s scientific method which is “observe without prejudice.”

 

[cfauster]

I don’t see where I am confusing scientific explanations with what is being explained. I was trying to make this very point - that what is seen as “evidence” is actually an interpretation. I thought I was pretty clear that persons consist of far more than what the scientific method can study. In fact, I would hold that you can only truly know a person when you love them.

Indeed. Sorry for not being clear. I did not mean that you personally were confusing anything. I was just reminding us all (myself included) that though a scientific explanation cannot refer to a non-natural Cause, God still has lots (everything, in a sense) to do with every thing/process/phenomenon that science studies. God is not excluded from any part of reality, even the parts science attempts to explain. God is not referred to within the scientific explanation as a causal agent, that’s all. As you say, that is a limitation of science. But to bring God (or any non-natural causal agent) into the scientific explanation itself is not the answer. I’m not saying you were trying to do that. Rather, I’m saying that some non-theists mingle exclusion of God from reality/existence (which is unfounded) with exclusion of God from scientific explanations (which is appropriate). That’s the distinction I was making, and I know you already make that distinction (hence your distinction between science and scientism).

 

[cfauster]

Can I add –

While the author of the first three chapters of Genesis was not a Ph.D. scientist, he was capable of employing the first principle of today’s scientific method which is “observe without prejudice.”

I agree.

Of course, when it comes to the first three chapters of Genesis, we are dealing with something very different. Moses (if that’s who you mean) observed lots of things, and some of those might appear later in the Torah, but not the first three chapters of Genesis.

 

[grannymh]

Sorry folks, but my brain is stuck on a chromosome fusion. Obviously, chromosomes are details of material anatomies. It seems to me that the main thing we learn from a chromosome fusion is that matter (material of which chromosomes are made) is subject to change. The *Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition *talks about matter in paragraph 365. Emphasis is mine.
**365 **The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body: i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.

To me, the body made of matter sounds on the scientific side. Interestingly, when this universal Catechism was put together, genes and the Piltdown Man were common knowledge. The concept of polygenism had been thoroughly addressed in
the 1940’s. The results are in the 1950 Encyclical Humani gereris. While some scholars urged updating Catholic doctrines to comport with science, the *CCC *is a flat out example of the permanency of Divine Revelation.

When the first three chapters of Genesis were written, the author was well aware of other cultures, other peoples, in addition to the Hebrews. He did not need chromosome knowledge to tell the difference between non-humans and humans. Obviously, the author thought it necessary to start at the beginning of human history. Genesis 1:1 credits the material creation to God and then it shifts dramatically in verse 26 to the unique nature of humans. But there is nothing in those first chapters in Genesis about other peoples in addition to the two humans who are the principal actors in the drama of chapters one, two, and three . It is in Chapter four, after Original Sin had been committed, that other humans are referred to.

Even though the author was a non-science kind of guy, he still had to face the problem of other people populations in existence. While the author did not know that animals and humans shared similar genes, he knew the essential difference between them and himself which overrode his lack of science 101. It was obvious that human creatures mated with human creatures. Thus, from the basic material knowledge of human anatomical functions, it could be logically deduced that humans did not come from non-human sources. (Genesis 2:20)

The author’s own population had remained faithful to One God. One God as Creator could make it possible for two individuals, parents, to be made in His image. (Genesis 1: 28) Now, I doubt that the author knew what all “image of God” meant; yet, he recognized that the importance of that fact had to be square one. One God means there is one kind of image. Knowing that God was the one Creator, and observing the same uniqueness of all peoples, the first Genesis author was open to the Divine Revelation of two sole very unique parents who were very separate from other species.

Now, the first Genesis writer could have been confused (like ourselves) by the observation that humans and animals have a lot in common. Consequently, the writer includes the detail in Genesis 2: 20 which clearly demonstrates the general biological difference between species.

In addition, further details in Genesis 2: 15 and Genesis 3: 8, provide a basic explanation for the Hebrew religion which comes from a personal relationship with God. Because humans are spiritual creatures in the sense of being able to personally communicate with God by being in the image of God, there would be no differences in humans because of when they were born. As said in the beginning of this post, our decomposing anatomies made of matter are subject to change. What does not change is the immediate direct creation of our spiritual soul. We are born fully complete because of our nature’s personal relationship with God via being in the “image of God”.

(Information source: Genesis 1: 26- 31; Genesis 2: 16-17; CCC, 355-358; CCC, 364-366; CCC, 1730-1732)

Links to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

To be continued.

 

[grannymh]

Continued from post 96.

The interpreters of science seem to be constantly in our face creating some doubts about our material/physical nature as if DNA is what makes us human. We, as humans, do have DNA, some of which resembles that of other vertebrates. But what makes us human is our spiritual soul. Natural science can definitely see the results of our spiritual rational soul in the technology of scientific lab equipment being used in an air-conditioned facility which has a coffee maker in the break room.

In the wee hours, like a granny, we can become fixated on the presence of a rather strange chromosome which obviously was there at conception. From our 21st century perspective, we might think about a money-back guarantee that we were conceived as a real human person. We wonder about our ancient ancestor’s genomes. In a world of changing human knowledge, we are assaulted by doubts of our own purpose. Consequently, we can neglect our spiritual knowledge which comes naturally due to our nature’s personal relationship with God as our Creator. We do not need a cell phone to connect with our Creator.

We cannot place God’s creativity on a level with our own. God’s creativity took in the fact that human nature had to live in submission to Himself regardless of when a person was born in history. Regardless of when a person was born, she or he is fully human and is called by God to share in His divine life.

(Information source: CCC, 27-38; CCC, 355-356; CCC, 396; CCC, 360-361; CCC,1260; CCC, 1730)

The way to know that all humans are unique creatures with an eternal destiny in the joy-filled presence of their Creator is to understand the necessity that all humanity descended from one original set of parents, biblically known as Adam and Eve. The details in Genesis are based on the author’s simple observation that God did create human nature so that all could claim, by human inheritance, the right to live in a joyful relationship which was demonstrated in the Garden of Eden. This simple observation was taught in the Hebrew tradition of One God and one human creation which resulted in all humans descending from one human couple.

What about the theories which explain “human history” before humans appeared? There is a lot we can learn regarding genetic relationships within and between any material anatomies. Realistically, we need to understand that the scientific method deals in probabilities. For Catholics, it is the possibility of Adam and Eve that is essential to our Faith. God’s knowledge of how material things act and interact is definitely above our level . Yet, nature is intelligible in a variety of ways. And God does call us to learn about His creation. In doing that, science can produce many benefits for society.

Basically, we need the Catholic Church to keep us in balance between human creation of science and the Creator of humankind.

Links to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

 

[cfauster]

Great insights expressed in the above two posts, grannymh.

To choose just one that I so appreciate: you emphasize the personal and relational meaning of the first three chapters of Genesis.

Here is a recently posted video that I think conveys a similar message:
biologos.org/blog/video-repost-chris-tilling-on-biblical-genre-and-relational-truths

 

[grannymh]

Great insights expressed in the above two posts, grannymh.

To choose just one that I so appreciate: you emphasize the personal and relational meaning of the first three chapters of Genesis.

Here is a recently posted video that I think conveys a similar message:
biologos.org/blog/video-repost-chris-tilling-on-biblical-genre-and-relational-truths

I have watched the video more than once, and I still do not completely understand it. I need your help. I can say truthfully that I bring a number of presuppositions to the first three chapters of Genesis. My excuse is that as a kid in Catholic grade school, I learned Original Sin and the relationships between Adam and God and Adam and Jesus Christ as Catholic doctrines per se. Back then, we got a basic idea of Adam and Eve without a thorough study of the Scripture. Don’t tell anyone, but when I landed on CAF, there was a thread on the symbolism of the Tree of Life and I had no clue where that tree was.

My presuppositions are based on Catholic doctrines and the logic which follows from the really basic doctrines like “God exists.” My own thread “Adam & Logic” in the Philosophy Forum was an attempt at putting together reasonable reasons for believing in Adam and Eve. That thread closed because it reached the maximum of 1,000 posts.

Because this thread pertains to “Genesis details…” I can return to studying Adam and Eve as described by an author who may have been a philosopher or theologian. I am ready to expand my knowledge about relational meanings in Genesis, if you will take the lead. As long as this thread contains a confession of my deficiencies, I might as well give you my ulterior motive. A couple of years back, there was a post which included a quote of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. It appeared to be used as a denial of the original personal aspects of Adam and Original Sin. Needless to say, I was confused.

In my humble opinion, in this thread, we should use the framework of those famous chapters in Genesis. What is fascinating to me is that I can read a passage over and over again, put it down, and the next time I find a deeper meaning in it. I am willing to bet that you, and many readers, experience the same thing.

Note: The Catholic Church has defined specific doctrines which flow from Genesis. What I can do is to offer opinions on the surrounding information as long as those opinions do not contradict a Catholic doctrine. For example, I love blue eyes while you may say that Adam had brown eyes. I may insist on blue eyes, but I cannot deviate from the fact that Adam shattered humanity’s relationship with Divinity via his disobedience. In relationship to that disobedience, neither can we deny the Divinity of Jesus Christ.

 

[Aloysium]

biologos.org/blog/video-repost-chris-tilling-on-biblical-genre-and-relational-truths

I watched it a few times myself, granny.
I can’t say I got much out of it.
It starts off badly with some weird comment that the focus of the crucifixion is Jesus’ pain and then saying that is wrong.
The weird music, especially at the beginning, had me wondering whether the next comment would be that Jesus was an alien.
He talks of theological truth as distinct from modern historical and biological truth; there was clearly something that the author was trying to say, but he did not manage to reach me.
It does not stir the soul. Does anyone feel closer to God listening to those words? I don’t.
I would add that one can see God’s hand in history, in spite of its being a litany of sinfulness, and when science reveals the beauty of creation, one can feel transported. The author does not seem to truly put it together, but I’m asking for too much.