Having a problem with Adam and Eve

[Usagi]

Catholic SF writer Michael Flynn takes a stab at reconciling polygenism with original sin here:

tofspot.blogspot.com/2011/09/adam-and-eve-and-ted-and-alice.html

 

[Faith1960]

We can’t really say others are irrelevant for us. Co-Adamism and Pre-Adamism are heretical inasmuch as these Co-Adamties and Pre-Adamites are to be understood as fully human. If they are to be considered not fully human, then my doubts from the opening post remain valid.

I’ve read the mathematical minimum given our current genetic diversity is 16 (or was it 8? 32?). It’s still more than two.

I know very, very little about biology, but well. If I understand the thing correctly, the first group of homo sapiens evolved from a group of their predecessors at more or less the same time. We may say there must have been some two individuals that were fully homo sapiens who were the first two to be born - obviously - but this still does not nullify the fact that some interbreeding must have happened. Which brings us to questions in my first post.

We may narrow down the issue to this: is it absolutely impossible, given what we know from genetics, for current humanity to descend from two people only? Without any interbreeding? If no, I would welcome data. If yes, well, back to the first post.

Also, someone mentioned Noah. Given that the universality of the Flood even as regards all but 8 people dying is - as far as I know - not a mandatory belief, I didn’t write anything about it.

 

[Faith1960]

Well exactly, where does genetic diversity we have now come from? I trust scientists who say the absolute minimum is a few thousand individuals.
By doing the maths I meant estimating the smallest group to ever live on Earth from the genetic data.

I have a problem with this too. Can somebody link us up to something that shows the human bottleneck could be two people? I’ve Googled my brains out. Maybe somebody else will have better luck.

Everything I read says there’s too much genetic diversity for the population to start with two people.

 

[Michael_Allen]

How would you answer my doubts?

Hello

I’ve spent my career as a research scientist in biological and biomedical research.

I’m not sure I can answer your doubts other than to say I think as we understand more about biology and evolution that does often lead us to let go of some beliefs that were once held firmly. I wouldn’t even try to fully reconcile scripture and science - I think that’s always going to be problematic while representing both scripture and science fairly and truly. I think it’s simplest to recognise that the men of faith who wrote scripture just didn’t have the scientific knowledge of ‘origins’ of the universe, the earth, life and, specifically, humans that we have today.

I too rejected all faith earlier in my life, as a consequence of my work in biology. But I returned later in life - not to exactly the same type of faith, but to a faith that that holds a little more lightly to religious dogma and a little more tightly to seeing faith as the path through we explore who we are and explore the question of how we should live.

But that’s just my own experience.

God bless +

Michael

 

[grannymh]

I’m basically considering leaving Catholicism, I’m on the fence. Consider this:

1. It is rather firmly established that human population never dropped anywhere below a few thousand individuals, let alone two. Evolution doesn’t really has much to do with this thing. Someone’s simply done the maths.
2. Real Adam and Eve as our progenitors are absolutely necessary for the doctrine of original sin to make sense.
3. Therefore, a problem.

Now I know of this theory that postulates there was a group of a few thousand individuals without human souls among whom God chose Adam and Eve and gave them immortal souls. Adam and Eve’s descendants mated with some of the ‘not-really-human’ individuals. God gave immortal souls to all children born thusly.

Everything seems fine, Catholicism and science again not in conflict.

But there are still some difficulties, and I would welcome any answers helping me in understanding the issue.
The most important issue, which I would like to consider here, is this: it is always assumed when such theories are given, that the earlier population of ‘unensouled’ humans eventually died out, given that most children were ensouled.
However, this is only an assumption. If we accept such a scenario, can we be 100% sure that no such single hominid is alive today (or even in Jesus’ times)? If so, how can we be sure? Wouldn’t accepting this outline allow for theories which would assume mentally ill, or mentally disabled people are therefore not ensouled? If not, on what grounds?

How would you answer my doubts? Also, perhaps monogenism (biological) is not absolutely disproved? Although I would think it is. Is it so that the the maximum bottleneck of a few thousand individuals happened for the homo sapiens - but the ‘bottleneck’ for earlier hominids could have once been two (Adam and Eve)? I know next to nothing about all this, so just looking for answers.

God exists!

 

[Barricade]

I’ve had issues over this point as well and it’s one of the things that agitates me faith wise.

I find it hard to reconcile what scientists say about early humans (how there had to be more than two common ancestors to provide the healthy genes for a population that would grow larger and larger) with the doctrine of original sin, combined with the prohibition against incest.

As far as my understanding goes the Church cannot under any circumstances permit a marriage between sibling and parent-child pairings as the Church holds incest to an evil. But how else did the human population grow if the children of Adam and Eve did not breed with one another?

I’ve heard people say that God permitted incest for a time, to grow the species then banned it. But if God initially allowed this, how can it be intrinsically immoral?

 

[Faith1960]

I’ve had issues over this point as well and it’s one of the things that agitates me faith wise.

I find it hard to reconcile what scientists say about early humans (how there had to be more than two common ancestors to provide the healthy genes for a population that would grow larger and larger) with the doctrine of original sin, combined with the prohibition against incest.

As far as my understanding goes the Church cannot under any circumstances permit a marriage between sibling and parent-child pairings as the Church holds incest to an evil. But how else did the human population grow if the children of Adam and Eve did not breed with one another?

I’ve heard people say that God permitted incest for a time, to grow the species then banned it. But if God initially allowed this, how can it be intrinsically immoral?

Look under the Philosophy forum, posts titled “10,000”. Look at my post # 4 and go from there. It might be helpful.

Also I think Adam and Eve had daughters too and at the time, incest was necessary for population.

I did read something by Edward Feser that said that the
ensouled people still may have mated with the unensouled creatures.

 

[Barricade]

Look under the Philosophy forum, posts titled “10,000”. Look at my post # 4 and go from there. It might be helpful.

Also I think Adam and Eve had daughters too and at the time, incest was necessary for population.

I did read something by Edward Feser that said that the
ensouled people still may have mated with the unensouled creatures.

But if it’s intrinsically evil, then it’s wrong no matter what and for all time. The Church allows first cousin marriage but not without some restriction (I believe you have to obtain some kind of special permission of some sort) because it is not considered intrinsically wrong for first cousins to potentially mate in the bonds of marriage. But when it comes to siblings, the Church does not allow any exception because it is seen as intrinsically wrong. I just find it hard to see how this can be the case, while also believing that incest was part of God’s plan for the multiplication of the species which many people seem to be saying.

And in regards to the theory that ensouled humans mated with non-ensouled humans, how is that substantially different than bestiality? Without a human soul, how could one of the ensouled people every truly or legitimately marry a non-ensouled human? Wouldn’t there be a moral component lacking here? Would the non-ensouled mate have any understanding of God, morality, etc? How could they even consent to such a marriage? Wouldn’t they be kind of like animals?

 

[Faith1960]

But if it’s intrinsically evil, then it’s wrong no matter what and for all time. The Church allows first cousin marriage but not without some restriction (I believe you have to obtain some kind of special permission of some sort) because it is not considered intrinsically wrong for first cousins to potentially mate in the bonds of marriage. But when it comes to siblings, the Church does not allow any exception because it is seen as intrinsically wrong. I just find it hard to see how this can be the case, while also believing that incest was part of God’s plan for the multiplication of the species which many people seem to be saying.

And in regards to the theory that ensouled humans mated with non-ensouled humans, how is that substantially different than bestiality? Without a human soul, how could one of the ensouled people every truly or legitimately marry a non-ensouled human? Wouldn’t there be a moral component lacking here? Would the non-ensouled mate have any understanding of God, morality, etc? How could they even consent to such a marriage? Wouldn’t they be kind of like animals?

Don’t know. It’s just what I read, and makes sense to me. I mean we came from somewhere.

 

[Latinitas]

I struggled for a while with this too, and I even had a post on it that got over 100 posts.

In the first place, it is certain and proximate to faith that the whole human race stems from a single pair. Some here have tried to reconcile the two, but in vain. The doctrine which states that there were other men alive at the time of Adam and Eve was condemned in 1655 and 1950. Moreover, there are a number of passages in Scripture (e.g. Wis. 10:1), that establish this point.

Scientists, however, object, and say that such a thing is impossible, since it would require such a fast mutation rate that if such a mutation rate were to keep going, humanity would be mutated out of existence.

The scientists, however, have no basis to assume a purely natural involvement here. It is of faith that physical death is the result of sin, not nature. Consequently, to hold that a fast mutation rate existed after the fall for some time, and then slowed down, by God’s Power, is not contrary to reason. Also, it should be noted that, although miracles are not to be posited without good reason, it does seem that a special creation of man’s body is fitting, since man was created in a state above pure nature.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

 

[Neithan]

And in regards to the theory that ensouled humans mated with non-ensouled humans, how is that substantially different than bestiality? Without a human soul, how could one of the ensouled people every truly or legitimately marry a non-ensouled human? Wouldn’t there be a moral component lacking here? Would the non-ensouled mate have any understanding of God, morality, etc? How could they even consent to such a marriage? Wouldn’t they be kind of like animals?

Let’s hypothesize that Adam and Eve were the first “behaviourally modern humans” (our current subspecies, homo sapiens sapiens) but not the first anatomically modern humans, which still existed elsewhere at the time our first parents were in Eden.

In that case, if some of Adam and Eve’s children continued to mate with other homo sapiens, this would not constitute bestiality because of the possibility of reproduction. Bestiality is inherently non-reproductive. As for marriage after the fall, it probably did not represent the kind that we know through the fullness of the faith that we now have in the Church. Consider that polygamy was licit among the Israelites.

 

[Barricade]

Let’s hypothesize that Adam and Eve were the first “behaviourally modern humans” (our current subspecies, homo sapiens sapiens) but not the first anatomically modern humans, which still existed elsewhere at the time our first parents were in Eden.

In that case, if some of Adam and Eve’s children continued to mate with other homo sapiens, this would not constitute bestiality because of the possibility of reproduction. Bestiality is inherently non-reproductive. As for marriage after the fall, it probably did not represent the kind that we know through the fullness of the faith that we now have in the Church. Consider that polygamy was licit among the Israelites.

Mere biological compatibility does not make any potential mate “fair game” when it comes to this sort of thing. If you are interested in someone else’s wife, there is a moral impediment to that possible union despite the biological compatibility. There can be other kinds of impediments also. Brothers and sisters are biologically compatible but there is a moral impediment to this union as well.

In the case of these non-ensouled humans, they wouldn’t even be able to act like moral agents, they wouldn’t have an immortal soul or a morality by which they would be judged by God. How would they even give consent in marriage? They couldn’t sin, moreover, their “mates” would seem to be incapable of adultery because how could they, as essentially animals, be owed any fidelity in this sense? They wouldn’t even seem to understand the concept it seems.

 

[Rau]

It is from the two humans, that were our qncestors, thqt we inherited original sin. All others are irrelevant for us. Of course, there were others, and they also were our ancestors. Cain’s wife had to come from somewhere.

The siblings of Adam and Eve are assumed to have married each other and cousins. This was not genetically a problem at that time due to relative genetic quality.

 

[Rau]

But if it’s intrinsically evil, then it’s wrong no matter what and for all time. The Church allows first cousin marriage but not without some restriction (I believe you have to obtain some kind of special permission of some sort) because it is not considered intrinsically wrong for first cousins to potentially mate in the bonds of marriage. But when it comes to siblings, the Church does not allow any exception because it is seen as intrinsically wrong. I just find it hard to see how this can be the case, while also believing that incest was part of God’s plan for the multiplication of the species which many people seem to be saying.

And in regards to the theory that ensouled humans mated with non-ensouled humans, how is that substantially different than bestiality? Without a human soul, how could one of the ensouled people every truly or legitimately marry a non-ensouled human? Wouldn’t there be a moral component lacking here? Would the non-ensouled mate have any understanding of God, morality, etc? How could they even consent to such a marriage? Wouldn’t they be kind of like animals?

Marriage in the collateral line is not intrinsically evil. Marriage in the direct line, eg father daughter is. What is/is not allowed in the collateral line is practically assessed. Sibling and cousins are in the collateral line.

 

[rossum]

The siblings of Adam and Eve are assumed to have married each other and cousins. This was not genetically a problem at that time due to relative genetic quality.

Fascinating. You have the DNA sequences for Adam and Eve to provide evidence for this statement. This is a major scientific breakthrough; I suggest that you publish them immediately.

rossum

 

[Barricade]

Marriage in the collateral line is not intrinsically evil. Marriage in the direct line, eg father daughter is. What is/is not allowed in the collateral line is practically assessed. Sibling and cousins are in the collateral line.

The point I was making is that simply being biologically compatible does not mean a sexual relationship can always be moral between any male and female. A father and daughter are biologically compatible technically speaking, they can reproduce together but there is a moral impediment in this case to any relationship of that sort.

In the case of the theory of ensouled humans “marrying” or mating with non-ensouled humans. I don’t see how this could ever be a moral practice. The non-ensouled humans would have no immortal soul, they would have no moral obligations, they would have no capacity to enter into any kind of agreement or vows such as those contained in marriage. For all intents and purposes they would seem to be classed among animals with the only substantive similarity being a genetic one.

 

[Rau]

The point I was making is that simply being biologically compatible does not mean a sexual relationship can always be moral between any male and female. A father and daughter are biologically compatible technically speaking, they can reproduce together but there is a moral impediment in this case to any relationship of that sort.

In the case of the theory of ensouled humans “marrying” or mating with non-ensouled humans. I don’t see how this could ever be a moral practice. The non-ensouled humans would have no immortal soul, they would have no moral obligations, they would have no capacity to enter into any kind of agreement or vows such as those contained in marriage. For all intents and purposes they would seem to be classed among animals with the only substantive similarity being a genetic one.

Direct line marriage is intrinsically evil for reasons not about biological compatibility. Sibling marriage - a instance of marriage in the collateral martiage - was not ALWAYS immoral.

I don’t accept the theory in your 2nd para.

 

[grannymh]

Fascinating. You have the DNA sequences for Adam and Eve to provide evidence for this statement. This is a major scientific breakthrough; I suggest that you publish them immediately.

rossum

Please note that genetic diseases develop. Thus, it does not matter what genome Adam and Eve possessed. It is the mutations, over generations, which resulted in current genetic abnormalities.

 

[Rau]

Direct line marriage is intrinsically evil for reasons not about biological compatibility. Sibling marriage - an instance of marriage in the collateral line - was not ALWAYS immoral.

I don’t accept the theory in your 2nd para.

Corrected typos…

 

[rossum]

Please note that genetic diseases develop. Thus, it does not matter what genome Adam and Eve possessed. It is the mutations, over generations, which resulted in current genetic abnormalities.

Depending on what date you assign to Adam and Eve, there is a limited time in which to develop the genetic variation observed in modern human populations. We can measure average mutation rates in humans and in similar species. The number of mutations and the average mutation rate give us a handle on probable dates. Are you aware that there are over 4,000 alleles of some human genes? That number of different alleles take time to develop.

rossum