S
samiam1611
Guest
Here is an analogy
Dogs: Wolves :: humans: neanderthals
- Status
Dogs: Wolves :: humans: neanderthals
A
Ahimsa
Guest
With God, all things are possible.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
Adam and Eve need not have been Homo sapiens. Homo sapiens is a scientific term, not a biblical term.
G
grannymh
Guest
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.
F
Faith1960
Guest
I respectfully beg to differ: news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100506-science-neanderthals-humans-mated-interbred-dna-gene/
G
grannymh
Guest
Regarding the original statement from post 45. “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.”
The teaching of the Catholic Church is that Divine Revelation was completed in Jesus Christ. This means that after the Apostolic Age there would be no new Divine Revelation. This means that God did not reveal new information through Darwin.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
I don’t think anyone mentioned new “Divine” Revelation, but simply new revelations of how the world works, “non-Divine” revelations.Regarding the original statement from post 45. “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.”
The teaching of the Catholic Church is that Divine Revelation was completed in Jesus Christ. This means that after the Apostolic Age there would be no new Divine Revelation. This means that God did not reveal new information through Darwin.
G
grannymh
Guest
I did quote post 45 which mentions God. I consider God to be Divine.
B
buffalo
Guest
Presumably that is wrong. The recent article continues with the assumptions that were made earlier that have been shown to be in error.
B
buffalo
Guest
Grizzlies and polar bears have produced fertile offspring.
F
Faith1960
Guest
Can you please link us to something recent showing us this is wrong?
F
Faith1960
Guest
You know, this thread is once again, going off in all directions, like virtually all threads do, when all I want to know is, since we have Neanderthal DNA, does this contradict the Biblical and Catholic teaching that we’re literally descended from Adam and Eve?
B
buffalo
Guest
Is it reasonable to assume mutations occur at a constant rate?
G
grannymh
Guest
From top of link. “Most of us have some Neanderthal genes, study finds.” emphasis mine.
From within the aarticle. "The genetic study team reached their conclusion after comparing the genomes of five living humans—from China, France, Papua New Guinea, southern Africa, and western Africa—against the available of the Neanderthal genome**“rough draft”**. Emphasis mine.
An available “rough draft” is an acceptable description. The link to the draft says:
“Sequencing the more than 3.7 billion base pairs in the Neanderthal genome took about four years. So far the team has read only about 60 percent of the genes.”
As for five living humans, a minimum representation of the world’s population is often used in research. Practically speaking, this means that the conclusion is limited by the evidence and thus, the conclusion cannot be final, absolute, or universal.
Because I consider the importance of actual research over the media’s choice of what will sell, I will respectfully agree to disagree.
C
CEM5
Guest
Hi Faith,
well, I would hypothesize that once the earth was becoming populated, over time, as studies have proved, mutations occur, giving rise to various traits (color, size, etc,) or disorders and such (dwarfism, gianticism, etc). This “mutation” gave us our different “races” (although I say we all belong, of course, to the “human race”
). What is not to say that Neandertals were also part of that mutated race of human, just like pygmies are? Both are vastly different from what we consider “modern” looking humans, yet pygmies are still around. We have the Asian humans, Caucasian humans, Negroid humans, Native Americans (whose ancestors are the Mongloids), and so on: Many different looking humans (via la difference!), and yet, we intermarry (interbreed per se), so we are becoming more “alike” all the time. That is why it is possible for two “white” people, who both have had African ancestors to produce a child that is completely dark complected and not looking at all like a Caucasian. Vice versa: two African Americans can produce a child that looks completely Caucasian, because they would have had Caucasian ancestors as well.So, these Neandertals, having lived isolated for thousands of years, "welcomed’ their cousins - the so-called “modern” humans, and evidence proves interbreeding (that is why we carry a small percentage of Neandertal DNA). Because of “drifting” we do not have more of their DNA. I had explained earlier about that.
I am a mix of several nationalities, yet one nationality is dominant over another because of the dilution of my genetic makeup, if that makes sense. I apologize if I don’t make it clearer. I hope I have though.
G
grannymh
Guest
Now I am a tad curious.
Please. What is it about Neanderthal genes which would make you think that they could contradict the Catholic teaching that Adam and Eve, as two, sole, real human beings, founded the human species?
X
xixxvmcm85
Guest
I’m very reluctant to post, because my experience has shown me that the majority of evolution-based threads on CAF are riddled with so much nonsense that even an unemployed human couldn’t wade through it fast enough to post reasonable responses.
Nevertheless, let me cut to the chase:
NO. The study in question does NOT disprove monogenism (the belief that all humans today arose from a single couple).
Now, before I explain why this is the case, allow me to tell you my qualifications, and to tell you my own beliefs about the matter:
I don’t believe in a literal Adam and Eve. My reasons for doubt have to do with statistics and calculus which render the likelihood of such a contemporaneous couple incredibly unlikely. For the human species to suffer such a genetic bottleneck (an event in which the population is reduced to fewer than roughly 20 individuals) it would be nearly certain that genetic evidence of such would appear in our genomes… and alas, none is found. Either God is a deceptive God who makes the physical evidence appear one way, contrary to the truth, or his creation is just what it evidentially appears to be.
NEVERTHELESS,
You asked if this particular study disproves monogenism.
The answer is: No it does not.
Nevertheless, let me cut to the chase:
NO. The study in question does NOT disprove monogenism (the belief that all humans today arose from a single couple).
Now, before I explain why this is the case, allow me to tell you my qualifications, and to tell you my own beliefs about the matter:
- I received a B.S. in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California at Berkeley in 2007.
- I’ve worked in three genetics labs, two of which focused on the genetic mapping of human populations (i.e. cultural haplotypes) and the other which was more of a clinical lab used to test individuals for dominantly lethal genes (we tested for neurodegenerative dominant disorders such as Huntington’s Disease and ALS).
- I’m currently working on my Ph.D. in cellular neuroscience, and I’m studying the effects of epigenetic stimuli on synapse formation (i.e. I’m studying how our environment affects our genes to express themselves in such a way that they change the way our brain cells interact with each other).
I don’t believe in a literal Adam and Eve. My reasons for doubt have to do with statistics and calculus which render the likelihood of such a contemporaneous couple incredibly unlikely. For the human species to suffer such a genetic bottleneck (an event in which the population is reduced to fewer than roughly 20 individuals) it would be nearly certain that genetic evidence of such would appear in our genomes… and alas, none is found. Either God is a deceptive God who makes the physical evidence appear one way, contrary to the truth, or his creation is just what it evidentially appears to be.
NEVERTHELESS,
You asked if this particular study disproves monogenism.
The answer is: No it does not.
- We have long known that the human species arose out of Africa.
- If the human species (H. sapiens) arose out of Africa, then one would expect the “genetically oldest” humans to reside in Africa, since those populations in Africa evolved to their African environment quickly while the migrant populations which left Africa had to evolve to new environments.
- If the “genetically oldest” humans reside in Africa, then mutations and species exbreeding later on would present itself in populations outside Africa.
- The study states that all non-Africans have DNA indicative of H. neanderthalensis ancestry.
- This implies that the inbreeding of H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis occurred after “modern humans” left Africa.
- IF there is a single couple from which all “modern humans” arose, then that couple would have to have been an African couple who pre-dated the mixing of Neanderthal and “modern human” genes.
- Therefore, it’s still logically possible for a single contemporaneous couple to have given rise to the entire modern human race, while latter generations interbred with other species of the Homo genus.
G
grannymh
Guest
I use the Berkeley website.
Adam and Eve are not a reduced population; they are the founders, meaning the first persons. Just because the spiritual principle is not in science’s material/physical domain—God does not become a deceiver. I would say more regarding the relationship of methods to evidence, but evolution discussion is banned in this forum.
X
xixxvmcm85
Guest
A
Ahimsa
Guest
That doesn’t stop anyone else.
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).
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.
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.
- Status