Genetics and Neanderthals

[xixxvmcm85]

That doesn’t stop anyone else.

Yeah but it ought to stop those who are busy… yet here I am answering questions to the Jesus-Buddhists!

So, let me get this straight. You are saying that a single couple could have given risen to the entire modern human race, but you’re really saying that this single couple were living contemporaneously with other Homo sapiens; and when this single couple had children, their children interbred with these other Homo sapiens (otherwise, their children would have mated with each other) – and it just so happens that all living humans can trace their ancestry back to this single couple (and, of course, back to the ancestors of this couple). And, in subsequent millennia, the descendants of this single couple interbred with Neanderthals (who may be defined as either a subspecies of Homo sapiens or as a separate Homo species).

NO. What I’m saying is that the study linked to does NOT falsify that the aforementioned is true. I thought I made it very clear in my post that I don’t believe in a literal Adam and Eve. I was simply answering the question as it was posed to me

Granted, many other things seem to falsify the Adam-Eve hypothesis. I’m not sure where the Catholic Church stands on such a matter. I’ve seen the incredibly traditionalist (such as our friend Buffalo) use Humani Generis as evidence for the necessity of Catholic belief in a literal Adam and Eve. At the same time I’ve seen my own priest and Bishop appeal to the story as allegory, and even when I would mention Humani Generis, they would tell me that such was not infallible doctrine, neither a proclamation of faith nor one of morals (the two qualifications inherently necessary for an infallible proclamation to begin with).

With regards to your next quotation (from Humani Generis), I’m going to stop you prematurely:

From Humani Generis:
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.

This is the point at which you decided to truncate the quotation from the Papal encyclical. The line which immediately follows is:

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.

Notice the tempered words with which His Holiness addresses the seemingly contradiction with the Deposit of Faith. He, in essence, states that he has no idea how to resolve the dogma of Original Sin with the idea of multiple Adams and Eves, and by that virtue, concludes that such polygenic inheritance is impossible.

That does not logically follow, and thankfully for 21st century Catholics there have been a number of Catholic theologians and apologists who have tried to remedy the seeming discrepancy (including Catholic Answers’ own Jimmy Akin). Just because we (or His Holiness Pope Pius XII) cannot conceive of a way to reconcile the two, does not mean that such a reconciliation is not possible. Polygenic inheritance, as I understand it, while not palatable to many Catholics is nonetheless a very viable alternative to strict creationism.

Now that I’ve addressed what I believe, with regards to the actual deposit of Faith in the Catholic Church, you’ll see that the rest of your post does not apply to me:

If we label the male in this single couple “Adam” (and the female “Eve”), then we would have to say (following *Humani Generis *HG]) that this single couple contained the first “true men”, and that the other Homo sapiens alive at the same time as this single couple, were not “true men”, as defined by the Church, even though genetically they were of the species Homo sapiens.

OK, I think that scenario is consistent with HG. Now, one problem arises when the children of this first “true man” couple begin to interbreed with the other Homo sapiens who are not “true men”, and, millennia later, with Neanderthals, who are not “true men” either. The problem arises because we have “true men” interbreeding with “non-true men”, which seems too much like bestiality, in the eyes of some.

But I think a case can be made that all Homo sapiens, whether “true men” or “non-true men”, act, behave, and think like “humans”, and can reason and are morally aware. Thus, interbreeding of “true men” and “non-true men” would not be bestiality. There must be something that distinguishes “true men” from “non-true men”, and I would suggest that this something is referred to, perhaps indirectly, in Genesis 2.

 

[Ahimsa]

NO. What I’m saying is that the study linked to does NOT falsify that the aforementioned is true.

Yes, I agree that the Neanderthal study does not falsify the idea that humans evolved from a single, relatively small population of original Homo sapiens. And, like Jimmy Akin, I agree that such a definition of monogenism is not inherently incompatible with Catholic/Christian tradition.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Yes, I agree that the Neanderthal study does not falsify the idea that humans evolved from a single, relatively small population of original Homo sapiens. And, like Jimmy Akin, I agree that such a definition of monogenism is not inherently incompatible with Catholic/Christian tradition.

Ah! Upon re-reading your initial reply I see the confusion! And I didn’t do proper justice to your initial post. I’m very sorry!

You said:

Ahimsa:

So, let me get this straight. You are saying that a single couple could have given risen to the entire modern human race, but you’re really saying that this single couple were living contemporaneously with other Homo sapiens; and when this single couple had children, their children interbred with these other Homo sapiens (otherwise, their children would have mated with each other) – and it just so happens that all living humans can trace their ancestry back to this single couple (and, of course, back to the ancestors of this couple). And, in subsequent millennia, the descendants of this single couple interbred with Neanderthals (who may be defined as either a subspecies of Homo sapiens or as a separate Homo species).

That’s exactly right!

A single couple could have given rise to the entire modern human race, in contradiction to the evidence provided in the original post.

There is a whole heap-full of evidence which proves the contrary, which is part of the reason why I, personally, don’t believe in a literal Adam and Eve.

I hope that clarifies my position.

 

[buffalo]

Granted, many other things seem to falsify the Adam-Eve hypothesis. I’m not sure where the Catholic Church stands on such a matter. I’ve seen the incredibly traditionalist (such as our friend Buffalo) use Humani Generis as evidence for the necessity of Catholic belief in a literal Adam and Eve. At the same time I’ve seen my own priest and Bishop appeal to the story as allegory, and even when I would mention Humani Generis, they would tell me that such was not infallible doctrine, neither a proclamation of faith nor one of morals (the two qualifications inherently necessary for an infallible proclamation to begin with).

My evidence is much more than just Humani Generis. However, when people trot it out they should be aware that the Pope was basically saying - conduct your research, go ahead, but the final decision rests with the Church.

 

[grannymh]

Good for you! Can you tell me where on berkeley.edu it says that:

I use the Berkeley site in order to understand current scientific terminology and its e-mail updates to be aware of new research. The system of cladistics fascinates me because it treats, obviously, all anatomies as being material only. I do not use this site for information about Divine Revelation.

 

[grannymh]

Granted, many other things seem to falsify the Adam-Eve hypothesis. I’m not sure where the Catholic Church stands on such a matter. I’ve seen the incredibly traditionalist (such as our friend Buffalo) use Humani Generis as evidence for the necessity of Catholic belief in a literal Adam and Eve. At the same time I’ve seen my own priest and Bishop appeal to the story as allegory, and even when I would mention Humani Generis, they would tell me that such was not infallible doctrine, neither a proclamation of faith nor one of morals (the two qualifications inherently necessary for an infallible proclamation to begin with).

With all due respect to your clergy. What is not understood about Humani Generis is that the author is affirming Catholic doctrine not initiating new doctrine. Also, the exhibited confusion about Catholicism is most apparent when one misuses the phrase “infallible proclamation”. Citing the umbrella of faith and morals does not cover up lack of knowledge.

I am sure you understand Milford Wolpoff. I am reading his comments about the original form of polygenism in past centuries. It is interesting that he cites Pope Julius in 1512 as teaching that the just-discovered Aboriginal Indigenous Americans are descendants of Adam and Eve. Should I consider these Americans an allegory?

It is interesting to me that Wolpoff can cite Catholic history with an understanding of what the Catholic doctrine of monogenism means in regard to the unity of the human race. Yet, allegedly, some Catholic clergy seemingly overlook the necessity of human unity when it comes to Jesus Christ’s salvific mission.

I have omitted references to the assumptions in the 1995 research of Francisco J.Ayala on purpose. This is because I have not yet read the recent research by Heng Li and Richard Durbin. Regardless, these papers would come under the evolution ban in this forum.

In addition, in my humble observation, some current Catholics, including clergy, do not really understand general basic science or general basic Catholicism presented by Pope Pius XII in #35, #36, and #37 in Huamni Generis. The domains of both general science and the Catholic Deposit of Faith do not automatically change with the passage of time.

It should be obvious that truth is the ultimate goal of both science and Catholicism. Apparently, it is not obvious to some, not all, people that in order to achieve ultimate truth, science research has to be conducted properly and Catholic doctrines have to be understood properly.

 

[Ahimsa]

Yet, allegedly, some Catholic clergy seemingly overlook the necessity of human unity when it comes to Jesus Christ’s salvific mission.

There are at least two ways in which monogenism would be true. One, would be if there were an original couple, “true men”, whose children did not interbreed with any other humans who were existing at the same time; instead, the children interbred with their own siblings. All modern humans would be descendants of “true men” only.

A second form of monogenism would be one in which there were an original couple, “true men”, whose children did interbreed with the contemporaneously existing “non-true men”. The child of a “true man” parent and a “non-true man” parent would be a “true man”, thus a descendant of Adam, and thus suffering from original sin. In this scenario, all modern humans would be descendants of both “true men” and “non-true men”.

If the second scenario is compatible with *Humani Generis *(which I believe it is), then that go a long way toward reconciling HG with current scientific hypotheses.

 

[grannymh]

There are at least two ways in which monogenism would be true. One, would be if there were an original couple, “true men”, whose children did not interbreed with any other humans who were existing at the same time; instead, the children interbred with their own siblings. All modern humans would be descendants of “true men” only.

I do realize that Catholic terminology is often misunderstood.

In Catholic terminology, an original couple means the first, sole human couple so that one cannot refer to “any other humans who were existing at the same time.”

 

[Ahimsa]

I do realize that Catholic terminology is often misunderstood.

In Catholic terminology, an original couple means the first, sole human couple so that one cannot refer to “any other humans who were existing at the same time.”

By “true men”, I’m using the terminology of HG, in which “true men” refers to, originally, Adam and Eve. “Non-true men” would then refer to organisms who are physically identical to “true men”, but who lack that “spiritual” something that God gave to Adam and Eve.

Are you suggesting that HG is saying that the original “true men” were the only *Homo sapiens in existence at the time, *and that the children of this original couple interbred with themselves?

 

[buffalo]

Are you suggesting that HG is saying that the original “true men” were the only *Homo sapiens in existence at the time, *and that the children of this original couple interbred with themselves?

Yes, that is Catholic teaching.

 

[grannymh]

By “true men”, I’m using the terminology of HG, in which “true men” refers to, originally, Adam and Eve. “Non-true men” would then refer to organisms who are physically identical to “true men”, but who lack that “spiritual” something that God gave to Adam and Eve.

Are you suggesting that HG is saying that the original “true men” were the only *Homo sapiens in existence at the time, *and that the children of this original couple interbred with themselves?

What I would like to say is presently banned in this forum.

I do understand the ban on evolution discussion and I will respect that ban.

 

[Faith1960]

My evidence is much more than just Humani Generis. However, when people trot it out they should be aware that the Pope was basically saying - conduct your research, go ahead, but the final decision rests with the Church.

So, what happens IF it eventually comes to light, definitively, that the Pope happened to be wrong in HG?

 

[buffalo]

So, what happens IF it eventually comes to light, definitively, that the Pope happened to be wrong in HG?

Well then we would have to scrap many years of other Pope’s affirmations as well.

That would be a major problem and there would have to be a very good explanation as to why we got it wrong for so long and why the Holy Spirit was asleep.

 

[grannymh]

So, what happens IF it eventually comes to light, definitively, that the Pope happened to be wrong in HG?

The issue is not the Pope being right or wrong or somehwere inbetween.

The issue is the Catholic Deposit of Faith. The Catholic Deposit of Faith has existed as long as the Catholic Church born on the Feast of Pentecost.

The Pope has not lived that long.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

I use the Berkeley site in order to understand current scientific terminology and its e-mail updates to be aware of new research. The system of cladistics fascinates me because it treats, obviously, all anatomies as being material only. I do not use this site for information about Divine Revelation.

So then what was the point in mentioning, in response to my original post, that you use the site, and then immediately juxtapose that to your theological musings? I’m just not understanding the relevance I guess.

With all due respect to your clergy. What is not understood about Humani Generis is that the author is affirming Catholic doctrine not initiating new doctrine. Also, the exhibited confusion about Catholicism is most apparent when one misuses the phrase “infallible proclamation”. Citing the umbrella of faith and morals does not cover up lack of knowledge.

I didn’t mean to imply that any new doctrine was being created out of whole cloth. I understand well what magisterial infallibility entails and what it does not. What it doesn’t include are definitive statements about biology, which by very definition cannot fall in the domain of infallibility, no matter how much you or any other Catholic wishes to shoe horn it in.

I am sure you understand Milford Wolpoff. I am reading his comments about the original form of polygenism in past centuries. It is interesting that he cites Pope Julius in 1512 as teaching that the just-discovered Aboriginal Indigenous Americans are descendants of Adam and Eve. Should I consider these Americans an allegory?

So because Pope Julius used false premises to arrive at a true conclusion (that American Indians are humans), my pointing out the falsity of the premises somehow negates the conclusion?

Polygenism (at least the form I’m advocating) is nothing more than the negation of monogenism: that our species arose from two contemporaries. Whether this is “classical polygenism” or not doesn’t concern me, and it’s quite possible I’m not even using the correct word as in scientific circles we don’t even use the word polygenism. Since populations and not individuals evolve it’s taken for granted that our species evolved from a group of African, expatriated proto-H. erectus populations. This is what all the molecular and paleontological evidence suggests and there is no evidence whatsoever of a genetic bottleneck of TWO individuals.

The Pope could stand in St. Peters’ tomorrow and proclaim definitively that we came from aliens and I still wouldn’t believe it because such a statement is, by the very definition of papal infallibility, outside the scope of infallibility.

It is interesting to me that Wolpoff can cite Catholic history with an understanding of what the Catholic doctrine of monogenism means in regard to the unity of the human race. Yet, allegedly, some Catholic clergy seemingly overlook the necessity of human unity when it comes to Jesus Christ’s salvific mission.

This is a nice strawman you’ve created. I don’t know of any Catholic clergy, let alone biologists, who have concluded that humans are separate species.

 

[grannymh]

Well then we would have to scrap many years of other Pope’s affirmations as well.

That would be a major problem and there would have to be a very good explanation as to why we got it wrong for so long and why the Holy Spirit was asleep.

The issue is not “affirmations”. Please read the Gospel of John, Chapter 14. When this is read, hopefully people will be able to understand that human affirmations or we are not in charge as to what is right and what is wrong with Divine Revelation.

 

[Mudgely]

First, we do not have Neanderthal DNA – that is a huge exaggeration. Regardless of the human origin scenario, we share similar material anatomical functions with other material beings. For example, most animals and humans have eyes which see. That does not mean that we have our puppy’s DNA.

One human origin scenario is that before the true human person, there were many kinds of ancient beings which could interbreed until the point where one group separated from the pack. The separation would account for the eventual differences and similarities between species; but, in itself, the separation could not produce the spiritual soul.

Since the true human person is an unique unification of the material and non-material, it could be possible that God took one of the ancient material beings and formed it with the spiritual principle (soul) as a human person. This unity of spiritual soul and material body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body. It is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human person such as Adam. Please refer to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraphs 362-365. Or God, being the Creator of all that is seen and unseen (Nicene Creed) could have created human nature as a new creation, a creation whose material anatomy would be in keeping with similar species. It would be the spiritual soul that makes the human species peerless.
In both scenarios, it should not surprise us that we would carry some ancient genes.

The genome of a female boxer has been sequenced at MIT. 5 percent of the human genome is also shared with dogs and with mice. It is intriguing that the sequences conserved are nearly identical in all three species, and were clustered around developmental genes.

 

[Faith1960]

The issue is not the Pope being right or wrong or somehwere inbetween.

The issue is the Catholic Deposit of Faith. The Catholic Deposit of Faith has existed as long as the Catholic Church born on the Feast of Pentecost.

The Pope has not lived that long.

Then it seems to me there might be a very big problem. Don’t you?

 

[grannymh]

So then what was the point in mentioning, in response to my original post, that you use the site, and then immediately juxtapose that to your theological musings? I’m just not understanding the relevance I guess.

I stated what I use the site for and what I don’t use the site for. Can’t get much simpler than that.

I didn’t mean to imply that any new doctrine was being created out of whole cloth. I understand well what magisterial infallibility entails and what it does not. What it doesn’t include are definitive statements about biology, which by very definition cannot fall in the domain of infallibility, no matter how much you or any other Catholic wishes to shoe horn it in.

As far as I can tell, the main reference to biology in Humani Generis in #37 is that humans beget humans.

So because Pope Julius used false premises to arrive at a true conclusion (that American Indians are humans), my pointing out the falsity of the premises somehow negates the conclusion?

I believe Pope Julius was using Divine Revelation to declare that the just-discovered aboriginal indigenous Americans are human persons.

Polygenism (at least the form I’m advocating) is nothing more than the negation of monogenism: that our species arose from two contemporaries.

Would you prefer that I use polygenesis or polygenesist? Off line, I’m researching “polygenism” for an author. One assumption is that the main readership would be mostly Catholic intellectuals so, in your opinion, which word should I use - polygenism or polygenesis?

On the other hand, it is also assumed that ordinary folk, as readers, will be looking for a source of information regarding the human origin debate or debacle. These people are being told that polygenism is no longer a viable issue since it has been years since Pius XII used the word. In my humble opinion, those who dismiss Pius XII because he wrote in 1950 have no clue as to the protocol of the visible Catholic Church on earth. On that basis, maybe polygenism is the better word. Maybe I will flip a coin.

Whether this is “classical polygenism” or not doesn’t concern me, and it’s quite possible I’m not even using the correct word as in scientific circles we don’t even use the word polygenism. Since populations and not individuals evolve it’s taken for granted that our species evolved from a group of African, expatriated proto-H. erectus populations.

Taken for granted?? One of the interesting things I’m finding out about anthropologists is that they have the guts to disagree regarding research findings.

This is what all the molecular and paleontological evidence suggests and there is no evidence whatsoever of a genetic bottleneck of TWO individuals.

That could be true when one is only dealing with material anatomies that eventually rot or turn into fossils. Even the founder effect in animals usually includes more than two. Even so, there may have been an exception because not all animal species have complete data going backwards thousands of years. Also, it has been shown that animal species with a tiny population have a hard time surviving. Concept of “endangered species list.”

However, Catholicism teaches that human nature, in itself, unites both the spiritual world and the material world. Just because the spiritual principle is outside of the science domain, one cannot assume that the attributes of the spiritual soul do not exist.

This is a nice strawman you’ve created. I don’t know of any Catholic clergy, let alone biologists, who have concluded that humans are separate species.

All I said was that I found a famous anthropologist interesting. By the way, I find his theory very interesting even though it has been replaced.

As for your above comment about not knowing any Catholic clergy, let alone biologists, who have concluded that humans are separate species…I do want to respond in a respectful manner. How does “So what!” sound?

Please accept my sincere apology. Sometimes I cannot help being cranky (feminine form of snarky).

 

[buffalo]

The issue is not “affirmations”. Please read the Gospel of John, Chapter 14. When this is read, hopefully people will be able to understand that human affirmations or we are not in charge as to what is right and what is wrong with Divine Revelation.

I do not disagree.

When numerous Pope’s have written and published the fact of Adam and Eve do they enjoy the protection of the Holy Spirit?