Genetics and Neanderthals

[Ahimsa]

One needs to read Humani Generis very carefully because it does not refer to an original community.

Humani Generis refers to the natural generation of true humans descending from one specific individual.

It categorically denies polygenism in #37…

Well, that’s debatable, since the language of HG could be read to mean that polygenism, though considered unlikely, is not categorically denied.

Jimmy Akin (of Catholic Answers fame) wrote:
Hypothetically (and I am not advocating this), an interpreter might conclude that Adam and Eve represent the early human community as a whole. Pius XII strongly discouraged this interpretation in his enecyclical Humani Generis, but did not altogether preclude the possibility that the Magisterium might be open to it in the future, and some members of the Magisterium (such as the German bishops’ conference) have been explicitly open to it in recent years.

 

[Ahimsa]

Before we go any further…what is a Jesus Buddhist?

All of your questions are answered here – I hope.

 

[grannymh]

Way over my head. Can you just say, yes or no, does this contradict the Biblical and Catholic teaching that we’re literally desended from Adam and Eve?

blog.beliefnet.com/news/?p=44…m_term=aol.com

I have re-read the link in your opening post and the only thing I can say is that the brief summary is superficial. However, one can safely assume that the actual research paper assumes that human origin took place as a group, i.e., polygenism.

Yes, this position (polygenism) contradicts the Catholic teaching of Adam and Eve–but, at the same time, the research cannot conclusively rule out the possibility of Adam and Eve’s existence. In general, research papers on interbreeding contain evidence for a particular situation. This evidence is not sufficient to warrant an universal conclusion that excludes the possibility of Adam’s existence.

 

[grannymh]

Way over my head. Can you just say, yes or no, does this contradict the Biblical and Catholic teaching that we’re literally desended from Adam and Eve?

blog.beliefnet.com/news/?p=44…m_term=aol.com

I have re-read the link in your opening post and the only thing I can say is that the brief summary is superficial. However, one can safely assume that the actual research paper assumes that human origin took place as a group, i.e., polygenism.

Yes, this position (polygenism) contradicts the Catholic teaching of Adam and Eve–but, at the same time, it cannot conclusively rule out the possibility of Adam and Eve’s existence. In general, research papers on interbreeding contain evidence for a particular situation. This evidence is not sufficient to warrant an universal conclusion that excludes the possibility of Adam’s existence.

 

[grannymh]

Way over my head. Can you just say, yes or no, does this contradict the Biblical and Catholic teaching that we’re literally desended from Adam and Eve?

blog.beliefnet.com/news/?p=44…m_term=aol.com

I have re-read the link in your opening post and the only thing I can say is that the brief summary is superficial. However, one can safely assume that the actual research paper assumes that human origin took place as a group, i.e., polygenism.

Yes, this position (polygenism) contradicts the Catholic teaching of Adam and Eve–but, at the same time, it cannot conclusively rule out the possibility of Adam and Eve’s existence. In general, research papers on interbreeding contain evidence for a particular situation. This evidence is not sufficient to warrant an universal conclusion that excludes the possibility of Adam’s existence.

 

[grannymh]

Well, that’s debatable, since the language of HG could be read to mean that polygenism, though considered unlikely, is not categorically denied.

Jimmy Akin (of Catholic Answers fame) wrote:
Hypothetically (and I am not advocating this), an interpreter might conclude that Adam and Eve represent the early human community as a whole. Pius XII strongly discouraged this interpretation in his enecyclical Humani Generis, but did not altogether preclude the possibility that the Magisterium might be open to it in the future, and some members of the Magisterium (such as the German bishops’ conference) have been explicitly open to it in recent years.

So that is where the idea of a community came from. No wonder people miss the point of first parents (plural).

 

[samiam1611]

Well, all of us except those descended from Africa. So, how can we be part Neanderthal if we descended from two human homos sapiens?

Maybe Adam and Eve are of only African descent, but their kids hooked up with neanderthals?

This is the news report the beliefnet article is referring to if you’re interested in a slightly more in depth coverage.

The link it gives to the genome project is worth checking out.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Catholic Dogmas:

1. 
   *] The first man was created by God. (De fide.) Yes. Not Adam
   *] The whole human race stems from one single human pair. (Sent. certa.) No
   *] Man consists of two essential parts–a material body and a spiritual soul. (De fide.) Yes
   *] The rational soul is per se the essential form of the body. (De fide.) Essential? What is that?
   *] Every human being possesses an individual soul. (De fide.) Yes
   *] Every individual soul was immediately created out of nothing by God. (Sent. Certa.) YES
   *] A creature has the capacity to receive supernatural gifts. (Sent. communis.) YES
   *] The Supernatural presupposes Nature. (Sent communis.) Yes
   *] God has conferred on man a supernatural Destiny. (De fide.) Yes
   *] Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De fide.) I do not know
   *] The donum rectitudinis or integritatis in the narrower sense, i.e., the freedom from irregular desire. (Sent. fidei proxima.) The sentence seems incomplete
   *] The donum immortalitatis, i.e.,bodily immortality. (De fide.) Yes
   *] The donum impassibilitatis, i.e., the freedom from suffering. (Sent. communis.) Yes, in Heaven
   *] The donum scientiae, i.e., a knowledge of natural and supernatural truths infused by God. (Sent. communis.) Yes,
   *] Adam received sanctifying grace not merely for himself, but for all his posterity. (Sent. certa.) Adam did not exist
   *] Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. (De fide.) I do not know
   *] Through the sin our first parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God. (De fide.)I do not know
   *] Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil. (De fide.) D788. I do not know
   *] Adam’s sin is transmitted to his posterity, not by imitation, but by descent. (De fide.) I do not know
   *] Original Sin consists in the deprivation of grace caused by the free act of sin committed by the head of the race. (Sent. communis.) I do not know, maybe not
   *] Original sin is transmitted by natural generation. (De fide.) Yes
   *] In the state of original sin man is deprived of sanctifying grace and all that this implies, as well as of the preternatural gifts of integrity. (De fide in regard to Sanctifying Grace and the Donum Immortalitatus. D788 et seq.)I do not know
   *] Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God. (De fide.) No

1. 
   If we quote theology pre-Darwin, it is complicated to answer and many things ar dubious. It is the same thing as quoting theology pre-Galileo to solve problems post-Galileo.
   
   God, through Darwin, revealed things we l did not know. We must re-think What the great theologians of the past reflected on the light of the new God-given findings.
   
   As you see, I agree with most of the statements, but some but be reworded and re-thought-

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

We are obliged to believe Adam and Eve existed.

HUMANI GENERIS:

1. 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 either that 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.

This is not a dogma told “ex-cathedra”.

 

[Mudgely]

Neandertals were isolated humans.

Not entirely isolated. They bred with homo sapiens. Unless you are from Africa, you probably have some Neanderthal genetic material as part of you.

 

[Mudgely]

Were they originally anatomically from Neandertal heritage? Maybe, since it is our spiritual soul which makes our species peerless. Was Adam formed from the earth in some way? Maybe, since it is his spiritual soul which made possible his relationship with his Creator. Either way, God is the Creator of all that is seen and unseen. (beginning of the Nicene Creed)

This would mean pre-neanderthal, if there was a split. Or else, the African line of homo-sapien is not descended from Adam and Eve.

 

[CEM5]

my previous post in part, of which you refer:

Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) indicates that all living humans descend from one maternal source—christened Mitochondrial Eve—who lived in Africa between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago. Similarly, the Y chromosome shows that all men have a common ancestor, Y-chromosome Adam, who lived at the same time. (Actually, both analyses indicate that modern humans descend from a small founding population of about 5000 men and an equal number of women.) The time estimates are based on assumptions on how frequently genetic mutations occur. The mutation clocks of mitochondrial DNA and the Y chromosome tick at different speeds, so the fact that they both indicate humans emerged at the same historical moment makes this evidence much more convincing.

Thanks for the detailed reply. Now for the questions: I didn’t see a date on the linked article but haven’t scientists somewhat recently determined that the Mitochondrial Eve isn’t the mother of all humanity?

Second: Wasn’t it determined that Y-Chromosome Adam came thousands of years later, after Mitochondrial Eve?

Third: This part of the article makes a lot of sense scientifically, yet doesn’t it contradict the CC teaching that says we did not come from a group of humans but only two people, Adam and Eve?

Hi Faith1960,

1. From the information, it is determined that this “Eve” as she was dubbed, is the most recent of our human ancestors who has passed on her mtDNA. Scientists theorize that “Eve’s” mtDNA was passed on to her from her maternal ancestors as well.

This is an interesting link:
livescience.com/10015-age-confirmed-eve-mother-humans.html

A maternal ancestor to all living humans called mitochondrial Eve likely lived about 200,000 years ago, at roughly the same time anatomically modern humans are believed to have emerged, a new review study confirms.

The results are based on analyses of mitochondrial DNA. Found in the energy-producing centers of cells, mitochondrial DNA is only passed down the maternal line, and can be traced back to one woman.

However, this doesn’t mean she was the first modern woman, rather it indicates that only her descendants survive to the present day.

1. The Y-chromosomal (Y-MRCA) Adam is the most recent male human ancestor that is traceable; this does not indicate that before that time, there were no male humans. Because the Y-MRCA is passed on patrilineally, and cannot be passed on to daughters, this doesn’t mean that this “Adam” had to live the same time as “Eve”. If a father has no sons, only daughters, or has no children, then his “line” per se, of the Y-chromosomal, is ended. It is agreed that there were other humans during this period who passed on their DNA to their descendents. The Y-chromosome is subject to mutations, and from these divergent groups can be traced the paternal family branch to that particular “father”. It is only that for now, we can trace the paternal lineage to this particular male dubbed as “Adam”. These humans, “Eve” and “Adam” are not the very first humans, but are our closest – or most recent – findings of a common ancestor. They too, would have received their mtDNA and Y-chromosomal DNA from their ancestors.
2. I think this would tie in with the above answer. In my opinion, it doesn’t really contradict the Biblical story of first humans. In the Bible we are told that Adam and Eve lived hundreds and hundreds of years, as did their offspring, and their subsequent offspring - so that the population would, indeed, have numbered into the thousands all still living!! Just my opinion.

blessings,
CEM

 

[CEM5]

First, we do not have Neanderthal DNA per se. We do have 20,000 to 25,000 genes in our DNA. This breaks down to approximately 3 billion chemical base pairs. All this has been “sequenced” so that the entire human genome can be studied. Source of information ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/home.shtml

Hi grannymh,

Yes, it has been shown that we do have some Neanderthal DNA.

news.discovery.com/human/neanderthal-human-interbreed-dna.html

• A newly mapped Neanderthal genome provides strong evidence that humans and Neanderthals interbred.
• Between 1-4 percent of the DNA of many humans living today likely came from Neanderthals.
• People of European and Asian heritage are most likely to carry the Neanderthal genes.

It’s official: Most of us are part Neanderthal. The first draft sequence of the Neanderthal genome has provided the strongest evidence yet that modern humans and Neanderthals interbred and that all non-Africans today have Neanderthal gene fragments in their genetic codes.

Although the Neanderthal contribution to the DNA of these individuals is estimated at being just one to four percent of the total, the finding, published in the latest issue of the journal Science, helps to resolve the long-standing controversy over whether or not humans mated with Neanderthals when the two groups encountered each other outside of Africa.

Reich is an associate professor of genetics at Harvard University who also serves as a population geneticist at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard.

He and his colleagues analyzed over one billion DNA fragments taken from Neanderthal bones – dating to approximately 38,000 years ago – found in Croatia, Germany, Russia and Spain.

The researchers next compared the Neanderthal DNA to samples taken from present-day humans in southern Africa, western Africa, China, France and Papua New Guinea.

In addition to the interbreeding revelations, the study illuminates what makes modern humans unique.

The researchers found Neanderthal DNA is 99.7 percent identical to present-day human DNA, but Homo sapiens evolved distinct genes related to cognitive functions, metabolism and the development of cranial features, the collarbone and the rib cage.

There is much more but the above is only bits and pieces of the article.

There is also the evidence of a hybrid child of Neanderthal and human characteristics discovered in Portugal.

donsmaps.com/lagar.html

Morphological mosaic found on this 24 500-year-old skeleton from Portugal indicates that Neanderthals and modern humans are members of the same species who interbred freely. The child - Lagar Velho 1 - is modern overall but bears some Neanderthal traits, such as short lower-limb bones and a backward-sloping mandible.

The bones of a four-year-old child, buried for millennia in the rear of a rock-shelter in the Lapedo Valley 85 miles north of Lisbon, Portugal, comprised the first complete Palaeolithic skeleton ever dug in Iberia. Our November 28, 1998, find made national news, but an even greater surprise was in store when my colleague, Washington University anthropologist Erik Trinkaus, who measured the bones weeks after the discovery, reported that the child’s anatomy could only have resulted from a mixed Neandertal-early modern human ancestry. Here, finally, was proof that Neandertals did not simply disappear from Europe 28 000 years ago. Instead, they interbred with modern humans and became part of our family.

Very interesting to read the whole article from 26 May 2011.

Another link to read about this Lagar Velho child:
wupa.wustl.edu/record_archive/1999/04-29-99/articles/neanderthal.html

For myself, I recall the Biblical story of how God caused our human race to spread out to the other parts of the world, and this is how the separate nations and languages evolved. It fits in with science as well. So, we humans came from one family, spread out, separated into our individual races/traits, (and because our DNA alleles do mutate, we became “different” in appearance and bone structure, due to natural selection/mutations), then we met up again, and as humans have always done, interbred. We still mingle our DNA!!

Anyways, those are my thoughts on why we have differences which don’t really conflict with the Bible or science.

 

[thistle]

This is not a dogma told “ex-cathedra”.

We are bound to believe all infallible teachings of the Church.
Are you telling us that Catholics are NOT BOUND to believe Adam and Eve existed??
Are you telling us that Adam and Eve had nothing to do with original sin??

 

[Ahimsa]

This is an interesting link:
livescience.com/10015-age-confirmed-eve-mother-humans.html
A maternal ancestor to all living humans called mitochondrial Eve likely lived about 200,000 years ago, at roughly the same time anatomically modern humans are believed to have emerged, a new review study confirms.

The results are based on analyses of mitochondrial DNA. Found in the energy-producing centers of cells, mitochondrial DNA is only passed down the maternal line, and can be traced back to one woman.

However, this doesn’t mean she was the first modern woman, rather it indicates that only her descendants survive to the present day.

This last part should read:

However, this doesn’t mean she was the first modern woman, rather it indicates that all humans currently living possess mtDNA that comes from her (and her direct ancestors).

 

[Ahimsa]

We are bound to believe all infallible teachings of the Church.
Are you telling us that Catholics are NOT BOUND to believe Adam and Eve existed??

Jimmy Akin says (and I would agree) that, currently, Catholics are bound to believe that there was one, original couple – but that this requirement may change in the future, as Humani Generis subtly indicates, as more scientific knowledge is gained and as theologians consider the various implications.

 

[grannymh]

This is not a dogma told “ex-cathedra”.

The Catholic dogma of two sole parents of humanity was in existence long before Humani Generis. When one reads above and below, it becomes obvious that this dogma is being restated in view of modern opposition to Catholicism.

 

[grannymh]

Maybe Adam and Eve are of only African descent, but their kids hooked up with neanderthals?

This is the news report the beliefnet article is referring to if you’re interested in a slightly more in depth coverage.

The link it gives to the genome project is worth checking out.

Please note that the discussion of evolution is banned in this forum.

Sticky: Temporary Ban on Evolution/Atheism Threads

If you wish, you could take the “in depth coverage” to the Back Fence Forum where evolution discussion is allowed provided specific rules are followed. There you would have the choice of starting a new thread or contributing to the second “nitty-gritty” thread forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=8459985

I am having trouble with the link. You should be able to scroll back to post 1.
If all else fails, the thread title is " To viewers of the nitty-gritty evolution thread**"**

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[grannymh]

We are bound to believe all infallible teachings of the Church.
Are you telling us that Catholics are NOT BOUND to believe Adam and Eve existed??
Are you telling us that Adam and Eve had nothing to do with original sin??

You are correct in that some “modern” catholics have dismissed the reality of Adam and Eve. And as a consequence, the actual meaning of the Original Sin is being denied.

Long range, the intent is to deny the salvific mission of Jesus Christ, True God and True Man, so that the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity becomes an “earthly prophet among other earthly prophets”. As was said in my old neighborhood --How’s them apples!

 

[buffalo]

my previous post in part, of which you refer:

Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) indicates that all living humans descend from one maternal source—christened Mitochondrial Eve—who lived in Africa between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago. Similarly, the Y chromosome shows that all men have a common ancestor, Y-chromosome Adam, who lived at the same time. (Actually, both analyses indicate that modern humans descend from a small founding population of about 5000 men and an equal number of women.) The time estimates are based on assumptions on how frequently genetic mutations occur. The mutation clocks of mitochondrial DNA and the Y chromosome tick at different speeds, so the fact that they both indicate humans emerged at the same historical moment makes this evidence much more convincing.

Hi Faith1960,

1. From the information, it is determined that this “Eve” as she was dubbed, is the most recent of our human ancestors who has passed on her mtDNA. Scientists theorize that “Eve’s” mtDNA was passed on to her from her maternal ancestors as well.

This is an interesting link:
livescience.com/10015-age-confirmed-eve-mother-humans.html
A maternal ancestor to all living humans called mitochondrial Eve likely lived about 200,000 years ago, at roughly the same time anatomically modern humans are believed to have emerged, a new review study confirms.

The results are based on analyses of mitochondrial DNA. Found in the energy-producing centers of cells, mitochondrial DNA is only passed down the maternal line, and can be traced back to one woman.

However, this doesn’t mean she was the first modern woman, rather it indicates that only her descendants survive to the present day. 2) The Y-chromosomal (Y-MRCA) Adam is the most recent male human ancestor that is traceable; this does not indicate that before that time, there were no male humans. Because the Y-MRCA is passed on patrilineally, and cannot be passed on to daughters, this doesn’t mean that this “Adam” had to live the same time as “Eve”. If a father has no sons, only daughters, or has no children, then his “line” per se, of the Y-chromosomal, is ended. It is agreed that there were other humans during this period who passed on their DNA to their descendents. The Y-chromosome is subject to mutations, and from these divergent groups can be traced the paternal family branch to that particular “father”. It is only that for now, we can trace the paternal lineage to this particular male dubbed as “Adam”. These humans, “Eve” and “Adam” are not the very first humans, but are our closest – or most recent – findings of a common ancestor. They too, would have received their mtDNA and Y-chromosomal DNA from their ancestors.

1. I think this would tie in with the above answer. In my opinion, it doesn’t really contradict the Biblical story of first humans. In the Bible we are told that Adam and Eve lived hundreds and hundreds of years, as did their offspring, and their subsequent offspring - so that the population would, indeed, have numbered into the thousands all still living!! Just my opinion.

blessings,
CEM

Important to remember - the age is based on what they believe is the molecular clock rate.

Two things to consider:

1. We now know MtDNA can be passed through father
2. The molecular clock needs to be recalibrated

From the Idvolution resource page"

Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock