Genetics and Neanderthals

  • Thread starter Thread starter Faith1960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mudgely said:
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.
Click to expand...
These are the 500 or so conserved “immortal” genes. From the core components and the language of DNA just about all life can be built.
 
Faith1960 said:
Then it seems to me there might be a very big problem. Don’t you?
Click to expand...
The sad thing, and I have seen it a few times on CAF, is when a person sincerely wants to believe Catholic doctrine regarding human origin, but is intimidated by the opposition.

I know how devastated I was when I read on CAF about the “scientific” evidence against the reality of Adam and consequently against the reality of Original Sin and consequently that Jesus Christ would be reduced to a human prophet among equal human prophets.

Being stubborn in addition to my cranky nature, I spent time studying human nature as taught by the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraphs 355 - 421 and I am still finding amazing truths there. As for science, when an atheist poster respectfully had my head on a platter for not reading recommended research, I started catching up with current science. This is a hard road. However, when one uses an analytical approach, serious questions arise about conclusions being extrapolated to an absolute universal exclusion of the possibility of two founders of the human race.
 
Mudgely said:
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.
Click to expand...
Recently, I watched a professor use this link genome.ucsc.edu/ in his class.
I agree that all of it is intriguing.
 
Pfaffenhoffen said:
Adam and Eve did not exist. Their story is a midrash, a tale with doctrine.
Click to expand...
I prefer the word Myth. Myth = truth in poetry.

The fact remains = all homo sapiens share the same ancestry.

One of my favorite documentaries on this subject is “The Real Eve”

I don’t agree with everything in that documentary but the premise that each one of us can trace our Mitochondrial DNA back to a single woman is a concept that fascinates me. This reality teaches us the same thing that the scriptures teach us: We are one people. We are brothers and sisters. We are human.

At some point in our development as human beings, we became cognizant of “Good” and “Evil” .

I believe this to be God’s plan for us.
 
buffalo said:
These are the 500 or so conserved “immortal” genes. From the core components and the language of DNA just about all life can be built.
Click to expand...
Maybe… not enough has been sequenced to make that claim. In the case I mention, Tasha the boxer, we are talking 2.5 billion DNA base pairs.
 
grannymh said:
As for science, when an atheist poster respectfully had my head on a platter for not reading recommended research, I started catching up with current science. This is a hard road. However, when one uses an analytical approach, serious questions arise about conclusions being extrapolated to an absolute universal exclusion of the possibility of two founders of the human race.
Click to expand...
So then whatorwhere**are the scientific conclusions that we’re the result of two founders of the human race? With so much opposition to the idea of polygenism, one would think that there’s some information out there from well respected scientists who believe in monogenism. No?
 
Faith1960 said:
So then whatorwhere**are the scientific conclusions that we’re the result of two founders of the human race? With so much opposition to the idea of polygenism, one would think that there’s some information out there from well respected scientists who believe in monogenism. No?
Click to expand...
What is being said is that it is impossible for science to absolutely, universally rule out the possibility of two founders of human nature which is the same as yours and mine. The most that scientific evidence can say about material anatomies without souls is that two founders are unlikely.

What you are asking is for science to prove a negative. That is not how science works. The scientific method is based correctly on evidence that is presented for examination. The scientific method is not based on unavailable evidence.

Does your existence depend on science hauling you into the laboratory for verification that you are real? Does the existence of your great-great-great grandmother depend on science exhuming her body?

Yes, I realize that some, not all, people believe that science should prove everything, anything, everywhere 24/7. My apology, but that is an unrealistic expectation considering that the spiritual soul directly created by God is not in the domain of scientific research.
 
Personally, I find that the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraphs 355-421 has the most logical explanation for human nature, including its origin.
 
buffalo said:
Originally Posted by Ahimsa
Click to expand...
So what you seem to be saying, is that *HG *(and Catholic Teaching) is defining “true man” as the same as Homo sapiens. But nowhere does HG equate “true man” with Homo sapiens; it’s conceivable that “true men” included Homo sapiens, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo ergaster, etc., even possibly the australopithecines. Since you define a “species” as the group of individuals who are able to interbreed with fertile offspring, the “true man” species might have included all species of the genus Homo, and even some australopithecines.

“True man” seems to be a theological category, with no necessary one-to-one correspondence with any one Homo species.
Click to expand...
 
Faith1960 said:
So then whatorwhere**are the scientific conclusions that we’re the result of two founders of the human race? With so much opposition to the idea of polygenism, one would think that there’s some information out there from well respected scientists who believe in monogenism. No?
Click to expand...
Please Note: post 122, comment “What you are asking is for science to prove a negative.” should be corrected to read “The assumption is that science can prove a negative.” My apology for the mistake.

I am sure that there are respected scientists who believe in monogenism because there are respected scientists who believe in God and His calling humans to share in Divine Life eternally.

I am sure that there are respected scientists who realize that the proof for monogenism lies within human nature itself. This is because there are respected scientists who believe that human nature is different in kind from all other species. The reason human beings are different from all other species is that only human nature, in itself, unites both the spiritual world and the material world.

Humans are both rational and corporeal; both material and non-material, both body and soul. Human nature is not two separate natures, but rather the unique unification of material and spiritual forms a single nature.

Does the scientific method, as defined by the current science establishment, allow experiments on the spiritual soul itself?
 
Ahimsa said:
So what you seem to be saying, is that *HG *(and Catholic Teaching) is defining “true man” as the same as Homo sapiens. But nowhere does HG equate “true man” with Homo sapiens; it’s conceivable that “true men” included Homo sapiens, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo ergaster, etc., even possibly the australopithecines. Since you define a “species” as the group of individuals who are able to interbreed with fertile offspring, the “true man” species might have included all species of the genus Homo, and even some australopithecines.

“True man” seems to be a theological category, with no necessary one-to-one correspondence with any one Homo species.
Click to expand...
Right - it is theological. It is my prediction that the current “species” definitions will be changed. Genetics will allow a better classification than we now have. The “tree of life” has already fallen and is now a bush.

In addition, I predict genetics will not show common descent, but common design. This is already clear from the fossil record.
 
Reality check.

“True man and true woman” is more than theological, philosophical, biological, classified and descriptive. True man and true woman should be considered a distinct, special, unique creation. As God’s creation, we should be looking at humanity in terms of destiny achieved by a personal relationship with our Creator.

While science is both interesting and important for the benefit of humanity,
it pales in comparison with knowing God.
 
There seems to be quite a few knowledgable people discussing this. Can someone tell me if the first known life had DNA structures as complex as the single cell life forms that exist now?

My understanding is that even the single cell life forms have extremely complex DNA structures.
 
HelenRose said:
There seems to be quite a few knowledgable people discussing this. Can someone tell me if the first known life had DNA structures as complex as the single cell life forms that exist now?

My understanding is that even the single cell life forms have extremely complex DNA structures.
Click to expand...
Absolutely - look at the ATP Synthase Motor which all life has. - no motor no life. The first cells were complex.

Consider - **IDvolution **- God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act.

This accounts for the diversity of life we see. The core makeup shared by all living things have the necessary complex information built in that facilitates rapid and responsive adaptation of features and variation while being able to preserve the “kind” that they began as. Life has been created with the creativity built in ready to respond to triggering events.
Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on Earth have the same core, it is virtually certain that living organisms have been thought of AT ONCE by the One and the same Creator endowed with the super language we know as DNA that switched on the formation of the various kinds, the cattle, the swimming creatures, the flying creatures, etc… in a pristine harmonious state and superb adaptability and responsiveness to their environment for the purpose of populating the earth that became subject to the ravages of corruption by the sin of one man (deleterious mutations).
IDvolution considers the latest science and is consistent with the continuous teaching of the Church.
 
buffalo said:
Absolutely - look at the ATP Synthase Motor which all life has. - no motor no life. The first cells were complex.

Consider - IDvolution - God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act.

This accounts for the diversity of life we see. The core makeup shared by all living things have the necessary complex information built in that facilitates rapid and responsive adaptation of features and variation while being able to preserve the “kind” that they began as. Life has been created with the creativity built in ready to respond to triggering events.
Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on Earth have the same core, it is virtually certain that living organisms have been thought of AT ONCE by the One and the same Creator endowed with the super language we know as DNA that switched on the formation of the various kinds, the cattle, the swimming creatures, the flying creatures, etc… in a pristine harmonious state and superb adaptability and responsiveness to their environment for the purpose of populating the earth that became subject to the ravages of corruption by the sin of one man (deleterious mutations).
IDvolution considers the latest science and is consistent with the continuous teaching of the Church.
Click to expand...
If this is the case, this certainly makes a strong argument against the idea of mere chance. What are the odds that millions of proteins and chemicals could line up in such a complex, organized form? It simply is not possible. There has to be intelligence and will behind life.

I do not understand DNA at all but this concept really does set my mind in a whirl.
 
HelenRose said:
If this is the case, this certainly makes a strong argument against the idea of mere chance. What are the odds that millions of proteins and chemicals could line up in such a complex, organized form? It simply is not possible. There has to be intelligence and will behind life.

I do not understand DNA at all but this concept really does set my mind in a whirl.
Click to expand...
Absolutely.

You want more of a ride? Watch this - look at the operations of the cell. Amazing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top