If "Eve became the mother of all the living," where did Seth and Cain find spouses?

[PracticallyCatholic]

The earliest descendants of Adam and Eve would have inherited perfect or nearly perfect DNA, as evidenced by their ridiculously long life spans. The deterioration in DNA cams later, as shown by the gradually decreasing life spans, until we got to a point where 80 was considered really old (Psalm 90:10).

Is the claim here that God create the DNA profile for each species independently? If so, wouldn’t He use ‘The Flood’ to cull the inter and intra-species DNA profiles found less than desirable?

 

[on_the_hill]

Also, the Church does not teach a literal acceptance that a Great Flood wiped the entire world free of human beings.

 

[PickyPicky]

Science does not claim this

Science does not claim what?

Evolutionary Biology does not say there was a first human.

Nor did I.

 

[Zaccheus]

The earliest descendants of Adam and Eve would have inherited perfect or nearly perfect DNA, as evidenced by their ridiculously long life spans. The deterioration in DNA cams later, as shown by the gradually decreasing life spans, until we got to a point where 80 was considered really old (Psalm 90:10).

Is the claim here that God create the DNA profile for each species independently?

The Church teaches that god created all the existing species.

If so, wouldn’t He use ‘The Flood’ to cull the inter and infra-species DNA profiles found less than desirable?

God sent the Flood to cleanse the Earth of Human wickedness. I doubt it had anythng to do with culling of genetic lines.

 

[PennyinCanada]

So the natural moral law changes over time? At one point in time it was Ok for brothers and sisters to get married. But now it is morally wrong for brothers and sisters to marry?

You are looking at an oak tree and having a problem understanding the acorn.

 

[PracticallyCatholic]

The Church teaches that god created all the existing species.

Correct. And science teaches us the species have an overwhelmingly similar genetic code.

 

[Truth2.0]

Ok, do any of you know what the popes, or doctors of the church, or theologians (like St Thomas Aquinas), teach on this matter?
This question must have occurred in the history of the church at some point in time. It’s a rather obvious one.

As for the marrying sisters and brothers, from a logical standpoint, yes, that holds up. BUT we must reconcile this with the fact that after the fall Adam and Eve served God and were eventually added as saints to the calendar on Dec 24th. Therefore, in order to accept this line of reasoning we must discover the teaching of the church on this matter would provide an exception for their heirs.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

This question has been addressed by Catholic apologetics groups faithful to the Magisterium, all over the web.

https://instituteofcatholicculture.org/articles/who-was-cains-wife/

Whom Did Cain Marry? | Catholic Answers Q&A

Why Incest in Genesis Was OK | Catholic Answers Q&A

Who Were Cain and Abel's Wives?

This question must have occurred in the history of the church at some point in time. It’s a rather obvious one.

There’s no need to go delving back into historical sources when we have the Church teaching on it set forth in current apologetics.

I would suggest that with this forum going away, you get used to searching the main Catholic Answers website and similar websites like Institute of Catholic Culture.
They have many tracts and articles that answer questions like your own.

 

[TomH1]

Science does not claim what?

What you said in your post which I quoted.

Nor did I.

I did not say you said it. Your post inferred that claim was there was a first human.

 

[PickyPicky]

Here’s what you quoted:

The decision to call the latest common female ancestor of today’s humans “Eve”, while good PR for genetic studies, is also the source of confusion.

To which you said:

Science does not claim this. Evolutionary Biology does not say there was a first human

But there is nothing in what I said that in any way implies that there was a first human.

So this:

Your post inferred that claim was there was a first human

Is mistaken.

 

[TomH1]

common female ancestor

This infers a first human.

good PR for genetic studies

Infers that your earlier statement (quoted above) is made by science.

Science, particularly the relevant discipline, Evolutionary Biology, makes no claim there was a first human, female or male, who is the common ancestor to all humans.

 

[whatistrue]

PickyPicky:

common female ancestor

This infers a first human.

The root word for this is imply, not infer. Imply is to suggest without explicitly stating; infer is to deduce that which is not explicitly stated.

And no, “common ancestor” is not necessarily “first human”. Also note that the original quote was “latest common female ancestor”, which does not prevent there being an earlier one; there would actually have to be a mother to the individual mentioned.

 

[TomH1]

The root word for this is imply, not infer. Imply is to suggest without explicitly stating; infer is to deduce that which is not explicitly stated.

I am not getting side tracked about semantics. Indeed, if you look at your own definitions ‘infer’ is correctly employed here.

The basics of what was said is there was a common ancestor of humans. A claim regularly made but not by science and the posts to which I referred made the claim that this is promoted by science. I suppose that may happen but not from those disciplines that are pertinent.

 

[whatistrue]

‘infer’ is correctly employed here.

And how does a written statement make a deduction? It can suggest, but not deduce.

What was said was that there was a most recent common female ancestor. That is not the same as “first human”, as you claimed it was. And yes, “most recent common female ancestor” is routinely mentioned in science, such as “Mitochondrial Eve”, as mentioned in this very thread. You are inferring that which was not implied.

 

[PickyPicky]

That is true, whatistrue, thank you.

 

[Pyjamarama]

Would that not bring about genetic disorders and birth abnormalities?

Funny how people always think that about them marrying sisters and yet Eve came from Adam’s body and nobody has a problem with them marrying each other when they were effectively twins.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Yes, this is addressed in the links to apologetics I posted.
Adam and Eve were created free of defects.
Defects occurred over generations as a result of mutations. It was part of the hardships humans had to deal with as a result of the Fall.

 

[Pyjamarama]

I guess women got pregnant straight away too whereas today so many people cannot become or make someone pregnant.

 

[PickyPicky]

The irony of this is that my post was specifically pointing out that Mitochondrial Eve (the most recent common female ancestor) is to be distinguished from Genesis Eve, believed by Catholics to be the first female human.

 

[TomH1]

TomH1:

‘infer’ is correctly employed here.

And how does a written statement make a deduction? It can suggest, but not deduce.

Infer means, here, means to draw a conclusion from what is said and written. Thus, my use of the word is quite correct in this situation. In order, to be certain I have consulted my Oxford English Dictionary, which confirms my use of this word in this context.

Mitochondrial Eve is not going to be widely understood so I believe the post still infers to those unfamiliar with this subject that there was a first human, an already widely held misconception.