Genetics and Neanderthals

  • Thread starter Thread starter Faith1960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In plain and simple English, please…
A sincere thank you for the reminder. Please see if this analogy works kind of.

One cannot unite football and baseball because each requires a different playing field. 🙂

Yet, both football and baseball can give individual enjoyment. 😃
 
Well, all of us except those descended from Africa. So, how can we be part Neanderthal if we descended from two human homos sapiens?
Neandertals are human. We bred with them so they are the same species, unless we want to change the definition of species.
 
A sincere thank you for the reminder. Please see if this analogy works kind of.

One cannot unite football and baseball because each requires a different playing field. 🙂

Yet, both football and baseball can give individual enjoyment. 😃
Then we’re back to what I’ve been tying to find the answer to, off and on when these threads come up. Do we have Neanderthal DNA and DNA that of whatever pre-humans there were, which evolved into homo-sapiens and became HUMAN when God gave us a soul?
 
Neandertals are human. We bred with them so they are the same species, unless we want to change the definition of species.
Exactly. They would have to be enterpreted as a part of the trunk of the human racial tree rather than another type of tree.
 
I know we’ve discussed this in previous threads, which veered off in all kinds of directions, but,…I found this brief article in my email this afternoon, coming from Beliefnet, and it’s bugging me. Instead of going off in all directions as most threads tend to do, I’m hoping for a succint answer from a Catholic who knows his/her stuff. Does this contradict the Biblical and Catholic teaching that we’re literally desended from Adam and Eve?

blog.beliefnet.com/news/?p=4462&source=NEWSLETTER&nlsource=11&ppc=&utm_campaign=Bible&utm_source=NL&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_term=aol.com
Yes, it is true that in general, there is a small percent of Neanderthal genes in Europe and Asia’s DNA makeup. Neanderthals lived in Europe, Asia and parts of northern Africa. However, they were very much human, although larger, stronger, and needing much more calories to maintain their body weight than their smaller cousins. It used to be taught that Neandertals could not speak, however, recent “discoveries” have displaced that long-held theory. We know now that they could speak, and therefore would have had a language as well to communicate. They buried their dead in graves with flowers, and other meaningful items, whereas the other humans did not at that time. There is evidence of interbreeding as well, and it is theorized that Neanderthals were assimilated into what we call “modern man” by interbreeding as well as the dying out of their populous by what some theorize also as “natural disaster”. Climate became colder, food scarce, and because Neanderthals were larger and needed more food to survive, their numbers were decimated.

When we look at DNA of humans, we all share common traits, but at the same time, we all have different parts of our DNA (alleles) that give us our uniqueness - our traits such as blue eyes, brown eyes, height, skin color, etc. Alleles are any of several forms of a gene, usually arising through mutation, and we can have mutations which cause genetic disorders, dwarfism, down’s syndrome, gigantism, etc. Yet, although each “disorder” does not resemble “modern man” – they are still human and of modern man.

Populations of a certain race can be lost to human history by what is called “genetic drift” when one allele that is dominant overides the recessive allele, and through time, you end up with only certain dominant alleles as part of the DNA. People who carry the red-haired gene (allele) are the rarest and it is predicted that given a number of years, this gene will be “lost” and perhaps not found in our human genetic makeup, because dominant alleles will overide this rare allele. This is what is known as “genetic drift”.

Blue eyes are recessive, as is blonde hair, whereas brown eyes and black hair is dominant. We inherit one allele from our father and we inherit the other from our mother. Therefore, if both mother and father have blue eyes (recessive), the child will always have blue eyes. If the father has brown eyes (both alleles having the brown marker), and the mother has blue eyes, the child will always have brown eyes (child will have one blue allele marker and one brown allele having inherited from father/brown, and mother/blue), since the brown allele is the dominant and will always overide the recessive one. Conversely, if the father had inherited one blue and one brown, (father’s eyes will brown), and the mother has blue eyes, (having two alleles carrying the recessive blue alleles), the child could either have brown eyes or blue eyes, since it is possible now to get one brown from the father and one blue from the mother (= brown eyed child) or one blue from the father and one blue from the mother (= blue eyes).

Two recessive will always produce a recessive. This is how Hitler planned to breed his new “race” of blue-eyed, blond-haired humans.

People can be carriers of recessive genes, (alleles), but not exhibit those traits/disorders. Mutations create new alleles, and this is believed why people have differing skin colors - according to the climate they lived in, and over time would have mutated to ensure survival (natural selection).

to be continued…
 
Continued…

Certain populous have different bone structures, and even different teeth structures, differing bone structures in the feet, etc… (such as Native Americans) and anthropolgists can determine by these facts the race of person. We have lost some Native American populous/genus because of “natural disaster” (not so natural per se: germ warfare) as well as intermarrying into “white” families (and even African American). Other races produce humans of slight height and bone structure,…Does that mean these differences make any of these races non-human? Of course not. The same can be said of the Neandertal race – still human, but of a different bone structure. Humans breeding with different types/races of humans always produce humans. We cannot cross breed with a gorilla, for example, and produce a human or even a hybrid since there are no known inerordinal (different orders) animal hybrid. Different species, such as a female horse and a male donkey, hybrid are almost always sterile. Their offspring is called a “mule”, and ALL male mules and most female mules are infertile. Horses and donkeys have different numbers of chromosomes.

Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes (22 of the same, plus 1 pair of each sex chromosome) = total of 46.

Chimpanzees have 48 total as do all gorilla subspecies.

Neanderthals have the same number as we do: 46

I believe that when God created first man and first woman, all the various types of our genes were present in perfection. (No genetic disorders, no disease carrying alleles). They would have carried the recessive genes for human traits such as color of eyes, skin, hair, height, and over time through populating of the world all these various traits became apparent, and over time alleles did mutate to produce those disorders/difference of dwarfism, diseases/disorders, etc.

Scientists have used what is mtDNA to trace our human evolution/ancestry:

web.mit.edu/racescience/in_media/what_dna_says_about_human/index.html

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.

The theory of evolution is ever-changing, in my opinion, because as time has shown, we are discovering “new” fossils of ancestors of the evolution of humans/apes that change the previous theories/hypothesis. In 2004, another discovery, Pierolapithecus catalaunicus, is now theorized as possibly being the last common ancestor of the human and ape before the evolutionary split.
 
Adam and Eve did not exist. Their story is a midrash, a tale with doctrine.
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.
 
Neandertals are human. We bred with them so they are the same species, unless we want to change the definition of species.
There is no “one” definition of “species”. Polar bears and Grizzly bears are separate “species”, yet they interbreed.
 
Catholic Dogmas:


  1. *]The first man was created by God. (De fide.)
    *]The whole human race stems from one single human pair. (Sent. certa.)

  1. It’s interesting that #2 is not “De Fide.”, which is the highest level on the truth hierarchy.
 
Catholic Dogmas:

*] Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God. (De fide.)
Might be worth noting that that doesn’t mean unbaptised children can’t go to heaven (and have beatific vision) (link).
 
Continued…

Scientists have used what is mtDNA to trace our human evolution/ancestry:

web.mit.edu/racescience/in_media/what_dna_says_about_human/index.html

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.

The theory of evolution is ever-changing, in my opinion, because as time has shown, we are discovering “new” fossils of ancestors of the evolution of humans/apes that change the previous theories/hypothesis. In 2004, another discovery, Pierolapithecus catalaunicus, is now theorized as possibly being the last common ancestor of the human and ape before the evolutionary split.
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?
 
Then we’re back to what I’ve been tying to find the answer to, off and on when these threads come up. Do we have Neanderthal DNA and DNA that of whatever pre-humans there were, which evolved into homo-sapiens and became HUMAN when God gave us a soul?
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

Second, our anatomy belongs in the vertebrate category which means we have similar genes to all kinds of animals, etc., most likely including some kind of relationship with archaic fossils.

This is not meant to be a snow job. It is an illustration that scientifically speaking our anatomy is a lot more than blood and guts.

It is my understanding that the Catholic doctrine on human origin singles out the principle of mongenism as the source of the first human parents. This means that Adam was an individual and not some kind of a group figure. Catholicism describes Adam’s human nature, as well as our own, as being an unique unification of rational/corporeal; spirit/matter; spiritual soul and material anatomy. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraphs 355 -421, has a lot of details about human nature; however, there are only a few specific details about the formation of the human anatomy. The fact is that we are left wondering. This, in my humble opinion, is very good when one considers that the aids for a healthy body were discovered by curiosity.

To answer your above questions, there is really no definitive answer except that the first two individuals had a human nature, soul and body.

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)
 
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?
Mitochondrial Eve (ME) is not “the” mother of all humanity. There were other females, hundreds, if not thousands, who existed at the same time as ME, and whose descendants exist today – however, these other females’ mitochondria were not passed down to 2011, whereas ME’s mitochondria were.
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?
Humani Generis did not categorically deny that the original humans may have been a community, rather than a couple, but it did say that the idea of an original community was very hard (but not necessarily impossible) to reconcile with the idea of an original couple (Adam and Eve).
 
Humani Generis did not categorically deny that the original humans may have been a community, rather than a couple, but it did say that the idea of an original community was very hard (but not necessarily impossible) to reconcile with the idea of an original couple (Adam and Eve).
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.
“… Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion [polygenism] 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.”
link vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html
 
Mitochondrial Eve (ME) is not “the” mother of all humanity. There were other females, hundreds, if not thousands, who existed at the same time as ME, and whose descendants exist today – however, these other females’ mitochondria were not passed down to 2011, whereas ME’s mitochondria were.

Humani Generis did not categorically deny that the original humans may have been a community, rather than a couple, but it did say that the idea of an original community was very hard (but not necessarily impossible) to reconcile with the idea of an original couple (Adam and Eve).
Before we go any further…what is a Jesus Buddhist?
 
I think understanding how profoundly different our current state of life is from our original state would help clarify the limitations of science on the matter of human origins.

As an example, originally our bodies were destined to be elevated in a deeper union with the soul rather than a body that is destined to become corrupt untill it can no longer be animated by the soul then turn to dust. Having a body that does not need to survive would change life in unimagineable ways.

Maybe human earthly life began in as profoundly a different way as human earthly life was meant to end. I would say it stands to reason and seems fitting.

Life that is not historical because there are no earthly remains to leave a record because it is not life that is subject to the powers of nature.

How can science incorporate those human realities in it’s equation?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top