Genesis details

[grannymh]

**Clarification of **Common Ancestry – A Catholic Approach

In science, Common Ancestry describes the time frame when a group of living beings with various genomes separated into more distinct groups because of the various kinds of genes which were being inherited.

From explanation for diagram in post 58.
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 word hypothetical is a very important “scientific description” which needs to be understood.

The following information is from a major source. It is recommended to start at the top of this link. evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0_0/evo_07

From link.
Misconceptions about humans
The points described above cause the most problems when it comes to human evolution. The phylogeny of living species most closely related to us looks like this: (refer to link)

It is important to remember that:

1. 
   *]Humans did not evolve from chimpanzees. Humans and chimpanzees are evolutionary cousins and share a recent common ancestor that was neither chimpanzee nor human.
   *]Humans are not “higher” or “more evolved” than other living lineages. Since our lineages split, humans and chimpanzees have each evolved traits unique to their own lineages.
   
   Unfortunately, the link in post 58 will not stand still. If it did, one needs to study the V with the point at the bottom. That point at the bottom is the hypothetical common ancestor. Notice point 1. The recent common ancestor "was neither chimpanzee nor human. The common ancestor is a population of beings with a variety of genomes. For one reason or another, certain genomes had a high rate of survival and as such, these “groups” diverged into the lineages eventually leading to chimps and humans.
   
   The Catholic position
   is that somewhere along the Hominin line, there was another divergence which was started by the two original first human beings who had a fully-complete human nature. Therefore, the left line in the diagram which leads to Homo sapiens would have a branch started by Adam and Eve.
   
   Note: When the human lineage is in place, then it is possible that some of the Hominins would change their position. A recent article in the journal Science, April 3, 2014, page 31, describes some of the paleoanthropologist debates since Homo habilis was discovered 50 years ago.

 

[grannymh]

Important correction to Note in post 61.

Note: When the human lineage is in place, then it is possible that some of the Hominins would change their position. A recent article in the journal** Science**, April 3, 2014, page 31, describes some of the paleoanthropologist debates since Homo habilis was discovered 50 years ago.

The article, “Fifty years after Homo habilis” is in the
journal** Nature**, April 3, 2014, page 31

My apology. I subscribe to both journals, Nature and *Science. *I was trying to get the “Note” in during the 20 minute editing time. Accidentally, who knows why, I wrote Science. So sorry about that.

 

[cfauster]

**Clarification of **Common Ancestry – A Catholic Approach

The Catholic position
is that somewhere along the Hominin line, there was another divergence which was started by the two original first human beings who had a fully-complete human nature. Therefore, the left line in the diagram which leads to Homo sapiens would have a branch started by Adam and Eve.

Thanks for this concise and clear statement. If I am understanding correctly, this includes: 1) an evolutionary origin for Adam and Eve’s bodies in the sense that they have non-human ancestors, but also 2) a divergence that involved just Adam and Eve, not a group of several thousand interbreeding individuals.

This proposal is distinct from several others, such as:

• A completely non-evolutionary origin for Adam and Eve’s bodies.
• An evolutionary origin for Adam and Eve’s bodies that includes other contemporary and interbreeding non-human individuals (such as the proposal of Kemp cited by Feser and by Bonnette) but still a single primeval literal couple, Adam and Eve, who would be among the many ancestors of all humans.
• An evolutionary origin for humans coupled with a figurative rather than literal interpretation of Adam and Eve, such that Adam and Eve are “types” representing multiple first humans, not a single couple.

I appreciate how the last might not be compatible with RC Church doctrine.
As I’ve stated before, I think Kemp’s proposal is compatible, as far as I can tell.

In any case, the proposal from Grannymh has some advantages and I appreciate the opportunity to reflect on it. Besides our different opinions as to whether Kemp’s proposal is also faithful to Catholic doctrine, I have a scientific difference of opinion in that I don’t see how Grannymh’s proposal accounts for the genetic diversity we see in human genomes, because (if I understand it correctly) her proposal still has a genetic bottleneck of only two (one pair).

 

[Aloysium]

I have been somewhat irascible lately, but Im hoping to keep emotion out of this.
I dislike the word “evolve”.
Not doing so good, it appears.

What is wrong with the word? It seems very positive.
Things growing in complexity - a much better word than devolve.
The problem is that things evolve, and generally on their own.

Now I could say that my thinking has evolved (hopefully).
Obviously, it is growing because someone is doing the thinking.
It is evolving because I am influencing the process, trying to get somewhere.
If we think of this as analogous to the process by which God created us,
then I would have less of a problem using the term evolve to describe our appearance on this planet.
This is not how “science” sees it.

“Science” as it is currently understood and practiced, has no place, no use for God.
It does not, cannot say anything about the soul.
It tries to understand our past by examining and analyzing what is materially present now,
analyzing the findings on the basis of how things work, again, currently.
(eg - No one lives to much more than 120 years now; life expectancy was a quarter of that 100 yrs ago.
Random mutations occur at certain rates. Having common genes means common ancestors. etc).

The model that describes our history specifically denies an external agency like God.
Its findings will necessarily be biased.

Science is circular in this way - a valid theory tells you what you will see, and what you see reaffirms the theory.
What is outside the theory is that God is intimately involved in the process.
A “scientist” doing research in this manner, operates with blinkers,
proving and reproving things by eliminating that which would disprove the theory.

None of this stuff, as ground-breaking as it is spoken of, is new.
The genotype, which is being explored is a reflection of the phenotype, which we have observed since the beginning.
I assume people have noticed, that like plants, we live and grow, and that like animals we have lungs, a heart, eyes, breasts, a brain.

I don’t know, but I speculate that God,
at the beginning of time started the process of creating us in His image,
by bringing us physically forth from the dirt,
making us ever complex “physical” forms into which He ultimately breathed His spirit.

All animal and plant life in this world is an intended (cause thats how He rolls) byproduct of our creation, the vehicle through which Christ came, bringing us to Him in eternal glory.

This did not evolve.
God created all this, which He maintains in each moment, and which seeks Him as its final destiny.

 

[buffalo]

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.

Could you give one or two specifics?

We will see if this paper will stand the test of time.

 

[buffalo]

Thanks for this concise and clear statement. If I am understanding correctly, this includes: 1) an evolutionary origin for Adam and Eve’s bodies in the sense that they have non-human ancestors, but also 2) a divergence that involved just Adam and Eve, not a group of several thousand interbreeding individuals.

This proposal is distinct from several others, such as:

• A completely non-evolutionary origin for Adam and Eve’s bodies.
• An evolutionary origin for Adam and Eve’s bodies that includes other contemporary and interbreeding non-human individuals (such as the proposal of Kemp cited by Feser and by Bonnette) but still a single primeval literal couple, Adam and Eve, who would be among the many ancestors of all humans.
• An evolutionary origin for humans coupled with a figurative rather than literal interpretation of Adam and Eve, such that Adam and Eve are “types” representing multiple first humans, not a single couple.

I appreciate how the last might not be compatible with RC Church doctrine.
As I’ve stated before, I think Kemp’s proposal is compatible, as far as I can tell.

In any case, the proposal from Grannymh has some advantages and I appreciate the opportunity to reflect on it. Besides our different opinions as to whether Kemp’s proposal is also faithful to Catholic doctrine, I have a scientific difference of opinion in that I don’t see how Grannymh’s proposal accounts for the genetic diversity we see in human genomes, because (if I understand it correctly) her proposal still has a genetic bottleneck of only two (one pair).

The assumption of diversity is just that, an assumption. We do not know what Adam and Eve started with.

 

[grannymh]

Thanks for this concise and clear statement. If I am understanding correctly, this includes: 1) an evolutionary origin for Adam and Eve’s bodies in the sense that they have non-human ancestors, but also 2) a divergence that involved just Adam and Eve, not a group of several thousand interbreeding individuals.

I would drop the word “evolutionary” and "the sense that they have non-human ancestors’ because these are unnecessary speculations. When clarifying anything, in my opinion, it is best to start with the simplest, non-controversial statements. Both the material/physical bodies of humans and hominins can be observed and evaluated by natural science. Both humans and hominins belong in the vertebrate classification. Being bipedal would be another common factor. And yes, genes for absorbing nourishment would also be similar. The first principle of natural science is to observe without prejudice.

At the point of divergence, no matter where it occurred, I do view it as two fully complete humans and not several thousand interbreeding individuals. This divergence is dramatically different from the Homo/Pan split. The only way it could possibility be accomplished is that Adam and Eve were immediately rational, including all the appropriate tools, and, in addition, they could make free definitive choices which would go against the instinct for survival and natural selection for survival. At the point of divergence, the survival chances of two individuals are based on the Catholic doctrines flowing from the first three chapters of Genesis.

This proposal is distinct from several others, such as:

• A completely non-evolutionary origin for Adam and Eve’s bodies.

A God who could freely create “out of nothing” (CCC, 296-298) could certainly make Adam and Eve’s bodies from scratch. When I exclude the theory of human evolution, I prefer the explanation that the body made of matter becomes a living human person because of the immediate creation of its spiritual soul. “There are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.” (CCC, 364-366)

Because of the legitimate issue of genetic diversity, I like to leave open questions involving multiple versions of a human gene. For example, the HLA-DRB1 gene and its versions in the current human population. (Francisco Ayala, “The Myth of Eve; Molecular Biology and Human Origins,” Science 270 (1995): 1930-1936)

• An evolutionary origin for Adam and Eve’s bodies that includes other contemporary and interbreeding non-human individuals (such as the proposal of Kemp cited by Feser and by Bonnette) but still a single primeval literal couple, Adam and Eve, who would be among the many ancestors of all humans.

Comparing the “interbreeding” proposals of Kemp with Bonnette, it is evident that they are extremely different. It is the difference which gives credibility to Bonnette’s proposal.

May I suggest treating this issue in a separate post?

• An evolutionary origin for humans coupled with a figurative rather than literal interpretation of Adam and Eve, such that Adam and Eve are “types” representing multiple first humans, not a single couple.

I am more a both - and thinker and not an exclusive either - or one. There is room for some figurative interpretation. There is also figurative language that is actually real. The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man.” (CCC, 404) Then there are Romans 5: 12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15: 21-22.

I appreciate how the last might not be compatible with RC Church doctrine.
As I’ve stated before, I think Kemp’s proposal is compatible, as far as I can tell.

Continued in the next granny post.

 

[grannymh]

Continued from granny post 67

From cfauster, post 63

In any case, the proposal from Grannymh has some advantages and I appreciate the opportunity to reflect on it. Besides our different opinions as to whether Kemp’s proposal is also faithful to Catholic doctrine, I have a scientific difference of opinion in that I don’t see how Grannymh’s proposal accounts for the genetic diversity we see in human genomes, because (if I understand it correctly) her proposal still has a genetic bottleneck of only two (one pair).

No matter how one looks at the genetic bottleneck theory, it still is described as a reduced population. This is similar to what is known as the “founder effect.” The Catholic Church does not consider Adam and Eve a reduced population. Instead, it is the beginning population.

While Ayala’s 1995 bombshell is often cited when the beginning human population is discussed, we need to realize that there are approximately 20,000-25,000 human genes and not all of them have the same history as the HLA-DRB1 gene. Even that history has been questioned by other science researchers with the result that there would be less alleles before the homo/pan split. As far as I know now, an exact estimated amount which could pass through two parents has not been determined. The point is that the original amount estimated by Ayala is not definitive. This means that all that researchers can say is that Adam and Eve’s existence may be improbable. They cannot deny the possibility of that loving couple. Think Black Swans in Australia.

I am not referring to the “age of the earth”, yet, it is obvious that humans have been in existence a very long time which means that mutations would happen normally with or without the homo/pan divergence.

Realistically, the human species would not need the mass interbreeding proposals. All that would be needed is the rare instances as described by Bonnette. The human female could be a victim. As for Kemp, he appears to be explaining the intersection of Catholicism with science in terms of the fundamental theory of necessary populations. Necessary populations deny the main principle of Original Sin that one person shattered the relationship between humanity and Divinity. Because the original relationship was between humanity and Divinity, only a Divine Person could make amends. (CCC, 389, last sentence)

It is the assumption that it is o.k. to let slide the original position of Adam, who with his spouse, founded the entire human species, which presents a danger to true Catholicism. Of course, people today have other ancestors besides Adam and Eve; however, that normal observation should not be used to shut down some of the principles surrounding Original Sin.

Going back to the “figurative concept,” Father Michael D. Guinan comes to mind.
catholicreview.org/article/work/catholic-church-has-evolving-answer-on-reality-of-adam-and-eve

Obviously, Father Guinan has been teaching and writing for a long time. Add his thoughts to those of Kemp’s article…or add Kemp’s proposal to Father Guinan’s positions and ordinary folk begin to lose sight of simple Catholic truths about our human nature.

We cannot allow ourselves to be intimidated by someone’s interpretations of natural science research. (CCC, 407-409)

Divine Revelation trumps!

 

[grannymh]

Some thoughts about the details in Genesis…

Sometimes, we can get so involved with the origin of the human species that it is possible to overlook the ultimate goal of the human species.

Natural science is a gift from God which can lead us to back to Him as the Maker of both the visible and invisible. Natural science, like the beginning verses of Genesis, chapter one, recognizes the beauty and power of our universe. The words of contemporary research are far different from the non-scientific vocabulary in Genesis, but the point is the same – our universe is intelligible. With that in mind, we need to re-examine the shift in Genesis 1:26. This detail is the key to the goal of the human species.

Natural science can recognize the eternal goal of the human species when it recognizes that the human species is different in kind from all other species. We are peerless. Being different in kind, we inherently know that the supernatural exists as in Genesis 2:15-17. We must examine the prohibition in the light of what it affirms.

Each time that there is “new information” in genetics, it is dangerous to assume that knowledge of the human genome is completed. The assumptions in 1995 overlooked such things as possible differences in background mutation rates, overlapping generations, and that possible migrations both in and out of a breeding population could influence data. Recently, researchers have said that the original and improved Wright-Fisher models have been replaced by a model which resolves numerous unsteady variables. Whether that is actually possible remains to be seen. What the announcement does signal is that human origin and human nature will always have a mystery to be solved.

The Catholic Church holds that the “mystery” of human nature and its origin can be sufficiently known (not necessarily completely known) when one studies the relationship between God as Creator and humans as creatures…when one accepts the difference between the spiritual realm and the material realm and the differences in the kinds and sources of the “data” in both.

Divine Revelation trumps!

 

[Ion]

I have been somewhat irascible lately, but Im hoping to keep emotion out of this.
I dislike the word “evolve”.
Not doing so good, it appears.

What is wrong with the word? It seems very positive.
Things growing in complexity - a much better word than devolve.
The problem is that things evolve, and generally on their own.

Now I could say that my thinking has evolved (hopefully).
Obviously, it is growing because someone is doing the thinking.
It is evolving because I am influencing the process, trying to get somewhere.
If we think of this as analogous to the process by which God created us,
then I would have less of a problem using the term evolve to describe our appearance on this planet.
This is not how “science” sees it.

“Science” as it is currently understood and practiced, has no place, no use for God.
It does not, cannot say anything about the soul.
It tries to understand our past by examining and analyzing what is materially present now,
analyzing the findings on the basis of how things work, again, currently.
(eg - No one lives to much more than 120 years now; life expectancy was a quarter of that 100 yrs ago.
Random mutations occur at certain rates. Having common genes means common ancestors. etc).

The model that describes our history specifically denies an external agency like God.
Its findings will necessarily be biased.

Science is circular in this way - a valid theory tells you what you will see, and what you see reaffirms the theory.
What is outside the theory is that God is intimately involved in the process.
A “scientist” doing research in this manner, operates with blinkers,
proving and reproving things by eliminating that which would disprove the theory.

None of this stuff, as ground-breaking as it is spoken of, is new.
The genotype, which is being explored is a reflection of the phenotype, which we have observed since the beginning.
I assume people have noticed, that like plants, we live and grow, and that like animals we have lungs, a heart, eyes, breasts, a brain.

I don’t know, but I speculate that God,
at the beginning of time started the process of creating us in His image,
by bringing us physically forth from the dirt,
making us ever complex “physical” forms into which He ultimately breathed His spirit.

All animal and plant life in this world is an intended (cause thats how He rolls) byproduct of our creation, the vehicle through which Christ came, bringing us to Him in eternal glory.

This did not evolve.
God created all this, which He maintains in each moment, and which seeks Him as its final destiny.

I think that there is literal interpretation of “created in His image” and we were created in the image of Jesus Christ.

 

[grannymh]

From the position of fundamental human morality

Dr. Kemp sidesteps the issue of bestiality in God’s Divine Plan. One does not have to be a Christian in order to tell the difference between two humans mating and a human mating with a non-human being from the animal kingdom. On page 232-233, Kemp’s article in the *American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly, *2011, Vol. 85, No. 2, there is this explanation of interbreeding as applied to a human with a subhuman. www3.nd.edu/~afreddos/papers/kemp-monogenism.pdf

From section on Objections and Replies

First, is this idea offensive to pious ears? Of course it may well be a consequence of my view that our earliest ancestors were sinners for continuing to interbreed with the pre-human beings who, if not of a different biological species, were not fully human beings either. The sin involved would be more like promiscuity—impersonal sexual acts—than like bestiality. But the idea that our first ancestors were sinners can hardly be an *objection *to this theory.
Footnote 44 clarifies that the union between human and non-human would be fertile.
44 Of course it should be noted that these matings were fertile, even if the relationship between the individual mates would be incapable of having any *personal *dimension.

Please compare this with Dr. Bonnette’s article in the New Catholic Encyclopedia Supplement 2012-2013

Bonnette, Dennis. “Monogenism and Polygenism.” New Catholic Encyclopedia Supplement 2012-2013: Ethics and Philosophy. Ed. Robert L. Fastiggi. Vol. 3. Detroit: Gale, 2013. 1013-1016. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 20 June 2013.

From section on **Monogenism’s Credibility, **page 1015. Emphasis in bold is used
to point out the nuanced language.

Current genetic diversity would be easily explained by the hypothesis that a few of Adam and Eve’s descendants incidentally mated with primates from the same biological population in which true man first appeared. This temporary perverse behavior would not be directly intended or approved by God, but would have been an** evil “side effect”** resulting from conditions consequent upon the Fall.

Relatively few successful matings would be sufficient to account for present genetic diversity.

From the philosophical position, Dr. Bonnette continues.
The superior nature of true humans, which were virtually identical biologically to coexisting subhumans, might have so dominated the procreative process that matter’s penultimate disposition was apt for the production of true human offspring, provided God infused the spiritual soul that determines matter’s ultimate disposition, as He does at every human conception.

That same incomparably superior intellective human nature might also explain why true humans survived, while coexisting subhumans apparently did not. This scenario would still fulfill the conditions of theological monogenism, since Adam would be the first true human being, and he and Eve would be ancestors of all true human offspring.

Dr. Kemp’s “**continuing **to interbreed with the pre-human beings” is essentially different from Dr. Bonnette’s "a few of Adam and Eve’s descendants incidentally mated. “Continuing to interbreed” would not be part of God’s Divine Plan because it is a permission to continue bestiality. Dr. Bonnette refers to rare iinterbreeding as an evil “side effect” emphasizes that the first humans understood basic morality and would avoid interbreeding. The evil of rape may be considered. (moral norms, CCC, 396)

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Each time that there is “new information” in genetics, it is dangerous to assume that knowledge of the human genome is completed. The assumptions in 1995 overlooked such things as possible differences in background mutation rates, overlapping generations, and that possible migrations both in and out of a breeding population could influence data. Recently, researchers have said that the original and improved Wright-Fisher models have been replaced by a model which resolves numerous unsteady variables. Whether that is actually possible remains to be seen. What the announcement does signal is that human origin and human nature will always have a mystery to be solved. . . .

Granny,

Everyone has their favorite way to understand Genesis, some acting as apologists for modern “science”, some favoring a purely supernatural origin to mankind.

You seem to be up on all this genetics stuff.
Can you say whether, when forming models of how humanity emerged on this planet and calculating such things as the size of a group necessary to achieve the variety of human genes present today, they considered:

• that possibly early human beings lived many hundreds of years?
• that if changes in genes were caused by God rather than chance, we would see all sorts of new developments, enhancing man’s capacity in to spread to new and otherwise inhospitable regions of the world. It makes sense to cause genetic diversity in a human population multiplying from just two.
• obviously, science cannot speak to supernatural causes; couldn’t God simply pattern man’s physical appearance according to a creature already in creation?

We can speculate all we want. Science is limited in what it can tell us about our origins. All we need to know is in Genesis, IMHO.

 

[grannymh]

angelfire.com/linux/vjtorley/kemp.html

This link, Adam, Eve and Monogenism by V. J. Torley, is an extensive in-depth response to Science, Theology, and Monogenesis by Kenneth Kemp. The entire link is well researched and well worth reading from both the philosophical and scientific positions. This complete response to Dr. Kemp’s article includes questions/answers pertinent to this thread plus some questions/answers which may be considered off topic for this thread.

Warning This link is not a page-turner.

It is an excellent resource for information needed in order to meet this century’s challenges to our Faith.

 

[Aloysium]

Thank you for the link.

Science reaches its conclusions regarding the nature and circumstances of our ancestors, particularly with respect to their place within the web of life on this planet, by examining the raw data from the perspective of certain assumptions. These include the idea of methodological naturalism - even if it were understood as being guided by God, our existence would be the result of an entirely natural process. We are considered to be a biological species. Right off the bat there is an problem, given that we are eternal beings. Additionally, it is not only philosophers who would hold that man is a rational animal. In the image of God, being our rational nature would have to include the capacity to appreciate not only truth but also beauty, and also the capacity to enter into a relationship with God, who is Love.

View attachment 19947

Man in the context of life on earth.

 

[cfauster]

Could you give one or two specifics?

We will see if this paper will stand the test of time.

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

 

[Aloysium]

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

I think I understand what the linked article is saying; it doesn’t add anything to my understanding of the issues involved in piecing together the biological history of our ancestors, let alone, obviously, their relationship with God.

This chromosome 2 fusion business is only an issue if you see us as having been only biologically determined and that only those Hominidae with 23 chromosomes or alternatively, only sapiens are to be considered “man”. I have not come across that verse in Genesis.

It was said tongue-in-cheek and has been deemed incorrect, but I still liked a speculation posted some time ago, that Adam and Eve were perhaps some sort of Lemur.

 

[edwest2]

I think I understand what the linked article is saying; it doesn’t add anything to my understanding of the issues involved in piecing together the biological history of our ancestors, let alone, obviously, their relationship with God.

This chromosome 2 fusion business is only an issue if you see us as having been only biologically determined and that only those Hominidae with 23 chromosomes or alternatively, only sapiens are to be considered “man”. I have not come across that verse in Genesis.

It was said tongue-in-cheek and has been deemed incorrect, but I still liked a speculation posted some time ago, that Adam and Eve were perhaps some sort of Lemur.

Really?

biblehub.com/romans/5-12.htm

Peace,
Ed

 

[Aloysium]

Really?
biblehub.com/romans/5-12.htm . . .

well, yeah, kind of:
I did understand the article. I did think it did not have much to say about the chromosomal evidence, which is said to support the claim that we emerged from from apes, and which I have not found described in Genesis.
Coming in the form of modern man, who comes in all shapes, sizes and attributes, Jesus has made our form, holy. On the silly side, lemurs are cute and these sorts of discussions, because they don’t have much, if any, basis in revealed or well-researched (imho) scientific truth, lead me to consider weird possibilities.

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned–

Original sin is of the spirit, unrelated to DNA or anything physical as far as I understand.
It would be interesting if the joining of the chromosomes marked the creation of man, if that is what you are suggesting. Again, no evidence, but interesting.

 

[edwest2]

well, yeah, kind of:
I did understand the article. I did think it did not have much to say about the chromosomal evidence, which is said to support the claim that we emerged from from apes, and which I have not found described in Genesis.
Coming in the form of modern man, who comes in all shapes, sizes and attributes, Jesus has made our form, holy. On the silly side, lemurs are cute and these sorts of discussions, because they don’t have much, if any, basis in revealed or well-researched (imho) scientific truth, lead me to consider weird possibilities.

Original sin is of the spirit, unrelated to DNA or anything physical as far as I understand.
It would be interesting if the joining of the chromosomes marked the creation of man, if that is what you are suggesting. Again, no evidence, but interesting.

I’m suggesting a God with the power of God, not man. That’s all. If the Bible is not a science text, why treat it like one?

Peace,
Ed

 

[grannymh]

Granny,

Everyone has their favorite way to understand Genesis, some acting as apologists for modern “science”, some favoring a purely supernatural origin to mankind.

You seem to be up on all this genetics stuff.
Can you say whether, when forming models of how humanity emerged on this planet and calculating such things as the size of a group necessary to achieve the variety of human genes present today, they considered:

• that possibly early human beings lived many hundreds of years?

I do not know if that possibility has been formally considered. The average length of a generation is often used somewhere in the calculations. When estimating population figures for the early generations following Adam and Eve, the length of female fertility would be important. Personally, I do not have a lot to say about the possibility of early humans living many hundreds of years.

• that if changes in genes were caused by God rather than chance, we would see all sorts of new developments, enhancing man’s capacity in to spread to new and otherwise inhospitable regions of the world. It makes sense to cause genetic diversity in a human population multiplying from just two.

It has already been demonstrated that changes within certain groups of genes have enhanced man’s capacity to spread to new and otherwise inhospitable regions of the world. This could be an adaptation to the environment. A current example would be humans who live in extremely high altitudes. The different human races are a prime example of genetic changes since the time of Adam and Eve. When we look at seven billion people, we find plenty of genetic diversity. However, this is different from the “problem of genetic diversity” presented by those people who wish to undermine the existence of two sole human parents.

The following is just a hint of gigantic genetic information. When it comes to the “problem” of current genetic diversity, scientists are usually referring to the diversity of alternative versions (alleles) of a single particular gene. Each human carries two versions of a gene. Mathematically, two parents together would carry four versions of a particular gene which means that a child would inherit one version from each parent. In the process, one of the two inherited genes would become the dominant or operative gene. Eye and hair colors are an example of how inherited genes can work.

Because the science perspective is that humankind is a population derived from a previous population, theoretically, the previous population could have more than four versions of a particular gene such
as the HLA-DRB1 gene in Francisco J. Ayala’s 1995 research paper, “The Myth of Eve: Molecular Biology and Human Origins,” Science 270 (1995) 1930-1936. On the scientific level, there have been challenges to Dr. Ayala’s methodology. Complete information is in Dr. Ann Gauger"s, chapter five, Science & Human Origins,
ISBN-13: 978-1-936599-04-2 (paperback)

• obviously, science cannot speak to supernatural causes; couldn’t God simply pattern man’s physical appearance according to a creature already in creation?

That is one speculation with the stipulation that it is the spiritual soul which animates the human body.
(CCC, 364-366)

We can speculate all we want. Science is limited in what it can tell us about our origins. All we need to know is in Genesis, IMHO.