Links to Human Genetics

[cfauster]

Are you saying that there were beings and two received souls, becoming Adam an Eve then their offspring mated with those other beings and so forth?

Here’s how Rev. Austriaco continues from the quote in my previous post:

“Growing up together in the tribe, these infants would have spontaneously developed a new language that only they could speak and understand … When they attained their maturity, it is likely that these behaviorally modern humans, these speaking bipeds, would have preferentially mated with each other because of their shared ability to speak a common language. Their children in turn would not only have inherited the capacity for language but would also have actually learned their mother tongue. Since language is clearly a beneficial trait for the survival of the species, it would not have taken long for these speaking bipeds to dominate and outcompete their non-speaking anatomically modern relatives. These speaking bipeds would migrate out of southern Africa and would eventually populate the rest of the continent and the globe. As I have noted in earlier essays in this series, it would be fitting for God to have given the original speaking bipeds – our original parents – the grace and preternatural gifts that they would have needed to attain their destiny of sharing in the life of the Triune God.”

 

[bmullins]

How do you suppose they evolved? Did they come from a group of hominids and were given souls or a mother hominid gave birth to a different kind of hominid that was human?

To be honest I don’t believe in macro evolution. I believe in micro evolution though. Cats produce cats. Dogs dogs, humans humans. Different skin colors, different stripes, different eye shapes… all that’s micro. I don’t believe an ‘ape’ begat a human. Just as we don’t see it spontaneously happening today.

That’s a science question though. I don’t suppose much when it comes to evolution. My field of study was electrical engineering in college, followed by some intense theological training these years. All I say is we aren’t at odds with science, and science isn’t at odds with theology. They address different questions.

 

[cfauster]

Is that polygenism?

Again, here’s Rev. Austriaco:

"I am often asked three questions in response to this theological narrative.

First, does the narrative presuppose single or multiple original parents? Neither. It suggests that both possibilities can be reconciled with the theological data because there could either have been one contemporaneous original couple or a handful of original contemporaneous and even related members of a family. In the same way that Eve led Adam to sin, if there was in fact a first community, one or more of the original speaking bipeds could have led his or her relatives to do the same.

Second, does this account not endorse sibling incest? This problem is not a new one. As St. Thomas recognized, any theological account of a single original couple would have entailed sibling marriage to ensure the survival of the human race. Thus, he acknowledges that only parent-child relationships are excluded by the natural law. Brother-sibling relationships, though excluded today by law, would have been necessary early in the history of our species (see Summa theologiae III.54.4). Now, if there was a first community, then this problem is lessened or even eliminated.

Third, how should we understand the interbreeding that took place between behaviorally modern humans and their archaic hominin contemporaries, the Neanderthals and the Denisovans? Theologically understood, these would be instances of bestiality, which still occurs today. However, because of the similarities in appearance and behavior among these closely-related hominin species, it is likely that it would have occurred more frequently in the past than it does today. The genetic similarity would have also made these matings fruitful in a way not possible today."

 

[edwest2]

Doesnt that go against our faith?

Science and genetics lack the competence to include, or even consider, anything supernatural. That is not a matter for faith.

Ed

 

[cfauster]

Rev. Austriaco also write on bioethics topics. See
catholic.com/profiles/fr-nicanor-austriaco-op

 

[edwest2]

From Humani Generis:

"36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

“37. 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. 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.[12]”

Ed

 

[Faith1960]

Again, here’s Rev. Austriaco:

"I am often asked three questions in response to this theological narrative.

First, does the narrative presuppose single or multiple original parents? Neither. It suggests that both possibilities can be reconciled with the theological data because there could either have been one contemporaneous original couple or a handful of original contemporaneous and even related members of a family. In the same way that Eve led Adam to sin, if there was in fact a first community, one or more of the original speaking bipeds could have led his or her relatives to do the same.
"

That sounds like polygenism to me.

 

[Faith1960]

To be honest I don’t believe in macro evolution. I believe in micro evolution though. Cats produce cats. Dogs dogs, humans humans. Different skin colors, different stripes, different eye shapes… all that’s micro. I don’t believe an ‘ape’ begat a human. Just as we don’t see it spontaneously happening today.

That’s a science question though. I don’t suppose much when it comes to evolution. My field of study was electrical engineering in college, followed by some intense theological training these years. All I say is we aren’t at odds with science, and science isn’t at odds with theology. They address different questions.

Let’s try to avoid the E word. Don’t want the thread shut down.

 

[Faith1960]

Here’s how Rev. Austriaco continues from the quote in my previous post:

“Growing up together in the tribe, these infants would have spontaneously developed a new language that only they could speak and understand … When they attained their maturity, it is likely that these behaviorally modern humans, these speaking bipeds, would have preferentially mated with each other because of their shared ability to speak a common language. Their children in turn would not only have inherited the capacity for language but would also have actually learned their mother tongue. Since language is clearly a beneficial trait for the survival of the species, it would not have taken long for these speaking bipeds to dominate and outcompete their non-speaking anatomically modern relatives. These speaking bipeds would migrate out of southern Africa and would eventually populate the rest of the continent and the globe. As I have noted in earlier essays in this series, it would be fitting for God to have given the original speaking bipeds – our original parents – the grace and preternatural gifts that they would have needed to attain their destiny of sharing in the life of the Triune God.”

Again, isn’t that polygenism?

 

[womanatwell]

I was looking for something from a Catholic perspective.

Have you tried the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation? They are definitely a Catholic group. Here is one of their articles which takes the viewpoint of a Young Earth and direct supernatural creation of Adam and Eve as taught by the early fathers:

kolbecenter.org/the-traditional-catholic-doctrine-of-creation/ .

Also, Dr. Ann Gauger of the Discovery Institute questions, in a scientific manner, the validity of the 10,000 person population bottleneck.She explains further studies have changed the estimates of bottleneck population size down to* two persons* needed for our current genome. She does so from a perspective of an Old Earth here:

evolutionnews.org/2014/07/on_human_origin087341.html .

I don’t know if Dr. Gauger is Catholic. Discovery Institute advocates Intelligent Design theory.

 

[Ron_Conte]

The terms AMH and BMH are used in anthropology. Rev. Austriaco’s theory is not tenable because the first BMH, Adam and Eve, would have been conceived by animals, in the fallen state, so Adam and Eve would not be in a state of original justice. If, to solve this problem, one were to propose an intervention of God, that would be too much like the Immaculate Conception, which was a singular grace and privilege. Also, his theory does not place Adam and Eve in the paradise of Eden, but only upon the fallen earth.

 

[Faith1960]

Have you tried the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation? They are definitely a Catholic group. Here is one of their articles which takes the viewpoint of a Young Earth and direct supernatural creation of Adam and Eve as taught by the early fathers:

kolbecenter.org/the-traditional-catholic-doctrine-of-creation/ .

Also, Dr. Ann Gauger of the Discovery Institute questions, in a scientific manner, the validity of the 10,000 person population bottleneck.She explains further studies have changed the estimates of bottleneck population size down to* two persons* needed for our current genome. She does so from a perspective of an Old Earth here:

evolutionnews.org/2014/07/on_human_origin087341.html .

I don’t know if Dr. Gauger is Catholic. Discovery Institute advocates Intelligent Design theory.

Dr.Gauged says 4 alleles can be carried by two individuals, but doesn’t that contradict what she was saying earlier in her post? Sorry, I’m so confused.

 

[edwest2]

Have you tried the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation? They are definitely a Catholic group. Here is one of their articles which takes the viewpoint of a Young Earth and direct supernatural creation of Adam and Eve as taught by the early fathers:

kolbecenter.org/the-traditional-catholic-doctrine-of-creation/ .

Also, Dr. Ann Gauger of the Discovery Institute questions, in a scientific manner, the validity of the 10,000 person population bottleneck.She explains further studies have changed the estimates of bottleneck population size down to* two persons* needed for our current genome. She does so from a perspective of an Old Earth here:

evolutionnews.org/2014/07/on_human_origin087341.html .

I don’t know if Dr. Gauger is Catholic. Discovery Institute advocates Intelligent Design theory.

Thank you for posting the link to the Kolbe Center.

Ed

 

[cfauster]

Dr.Gauged says 4 alleles can be carried by two individuals, but doesn’t that contradict what she was saying earlier in her post? Sorry, I’m so confused.

Each individual has two versions=forms=alleles of each gene (with rare exceptions). One was inherited from mother, one from father.

So yes, if each individual has two alleles for a given gene, two individuals would have a total of four alleles between them.

 

[womanatwell]

Dr.Gauged says 4 alleles can be carried by two individuals, but doesn’t that contradict what she was saying earlier in her post? Sorry, I’m so confused.

I think one of Dr. Gauger’s points was that scientific estimates can be challenged and changed. Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell, an MD, wrote an article, “Did we all come from Adam and Eve?” She quoted the geneticist Dr. Gloria Purdom. (Sorry for use of the “e” word in the quote-it can’t be helped.) Dr. Mitchell wrote (in 2013):

As to the simulations claiming humans arose from a pool of at least 10,000 hominid originals, Dr. Purdom points out:
Evolutionary scientists have shown in mathematical simulations that to achieve the genetic diversity of modern humans the starting initial population would need to be greater than two people. Most estimates put the number around 10,000.3 However, as discussed previously, these studies are based on assumptions about the past. For evolutionary scientists, this includes assumed evolutionary relationships, assumed mutation rates, and assumed generation times (the time between parents and off-spring does not vary). They are arbitrarily assuming evolutionary processes to try to prove evolutionary processes, which is a fallacy. If the assumptions are wrong, then the mathematical simulations will not give an accurate initial population size necessary to generate today’s human genetic variation.4

answersingenesis.org/genetics/did-we-all-come-from-adam-and-eve/ .

You may want to read that whole article (link above). Personally, I feel that population genetics is secondary to the biological complexity of the cell when it comes to appreciating God’s Creative power and to show how organisms could not have come about by complete chance (and selection depends on chance). Proteins are one of the working molecules of the cell and more is being discovered about them all the time.

I have many blog posts showing the complexity of proteins, so maybe you will take a look at the latest. The link is here:

womanatwell.blogspot.com/2016/03/proteins-do-much-of-work-of-cell-basic.html .

There are thousands of different proteins and their subunits have to be in precise order for them to function together. I believe this would not happen even in billions of years, just as bricks don’t form by chance in billions of years much less a brick house, or motors don’t form by chance in billions of years much less a bunch of cars.

 

[cfauster]

Thank you for posting the link to the Kolbe Center.

The Kolbe Center has been discussed before on CAF. For example:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10515657&postcount=1

 

[NM505StKate]

I thought this was a banned topic? If memory serves me it was discovered that the majority of humans came from Africa, Genesis gives locations to somewhere in the Middle East for the Garden. It can be surmised that Adam and Eve are not the first humans simply because of location.

 

[Faith1960]

I thought this was a banned topic? If memory serves me it was discovered that the majority of humans came from Africa, Genesis gives locations to somewhere in the Middle East for the Garden. It can be surmised that Adam and Eve are not the first humans simply because of location.

My question isn’t. We just can’t talk about the E word.

 

[Faith1960]

I thought this was a banned topic? If memory serves me it was discovered that the majority of humans came from Africa, Genesis gives locations to somewhere in the Middle East for the Garden. It can be surmised that Adam and Eve are not the first humans simply because of location.

Then we are back to polygenism again. Sigh.

 

[edwest2]

The Kolbe Center has been discussed before on CAF. For example:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10515657&postcount=1

Pope Benedict was unambiguous in his statements. And he knows the difference between faith and science, and what scientific study has contributed, but God was actually involved in His creation in a profound way.

Ed