Links to Human Genetics

  • Thread starter Thread starter Faith1960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Faith1960

Guest
I’ve been reading about Adam and Eve, trying to learn th other position-- that they were the first people on earth. As some of you know, I’ve been hung up on there supposedly being a human bottleneck of no fewer than 10,000 people or so.

I read this one article that said the information is there if you know where to look but I can find it. I did find some stuff talking about calibration or something.

Can anyone provide links to scientific information that shows Adam and Eve were the first people on earth?
 
Faith1960 said:
I’ve been reading about Adam and Eve, trying to learn th other position-- that they were the first people on earth. As some of you know, I’ve been hung up on there supposedly being a human bottleneck of no fewer than 10,000 people or so.

I read this one article that said the information is there if you know where to look but I can find it.
Click to expand...
******can’t find it.
 
Faith1960 said:
I’ve been reading about Adam and Eve, trying to learn th other position-- that they were the first people on earth. As some of you know, I’ve been hung up on there supposedly being a human bottleneck of no fewer than 10,000 people or so.

I read this one article that said the information is there if you know where to look but I can find it. I did find some stuff talking about calibration or something.

Can anyone provide links to scientific information that shows Adam and Eve were the first people on earth?
Click to expand...
Just using reason and logic we can see that at some point, there had to be one man and woman, even if you believe in macroevolution. At some point two humans had to evolve, that’s just rational thought. We call them Adam (meaning earth, or from the earth) and Eve (meaning life giving, life, mother of all.) That’s why it’s important to read that story not as a scientific treaty, but in the light of the kind of literature it is. Epic narrative is meant to show us not scientific fact but rather allegorically the relationship we have with God, the Father. That is it’s primary purpose.

It’s not supposed to give us a timeline, or a genetic proof that people have only existed for ‘6000’ years. It is rather supposed to speak of God’s love for us and of our failure to keep that relationship pure even from the start. It’s an attempt by the early theologians to explain things: why we have to work so hard, why women have labor pains, why snakes don’t have legs, etc. Read it for that reason. Then read a science text book for the science.
 
bmullins said:
Just using reason and logic we can see that at some point, there had to be one man and woman, even if you believe in macroevolution. At some point two humans had to evolve, that’s just rational thought. We call them Adam (meaning earth, or from the earth) and Eve (meaning life giving, life, mother of all.) That’s why it’s important to read that story not as a scientific treaty, but in the light of the kind of literature it is. Epic narrative is meant to show us not scientific fact but rather allegorically the relationship we have with God, the Father. That is it’s primary purpose.

It’s not supposed to give us a timeline, or a genetic proof that people have only existed for ‘6000’ years. It is rather supposed to speak of God’s love for us and of our failure to keep that relationship pure even from the start. It’s an attempt by the early theologians to explain things: why we have to work so hard, why women have labor pains, why snakes don’t have legs, etc. Read it for that reason. Then read a science text book for the science.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Faith1960 said:
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?
Click to expand...
Personally, I don’t believe we evolved at all. I think God created us male and female. He created us Human beings.

But…I guess I could be proven wrong. 🤷 bottom line…God started it all and He created it. If he used evolution to do it, so be it.
 
cstheriot said:
Personally, I don’t believe we evolved at all. I think God created us male and female. He created us Human beings.

But…I guess I could be proven wrong. 🤷 bottom line…God started it all and He created it. If he used evolution to do it, so be it.
Click to expand...
I’m now open to consider the idea we weren’t evolved, but really, it goes against the evidence I’ve read. I’d like more Catholic links to show we didn’t evolve.
 
Faith1960 said:
I’m now open to consider the idea we weren’t evolved, but really, it goes against the evidence I’ve read. I’d like more Catholic links to show we didn’t evolve.
Click to expand...
Its kinda up in the air. lol Here is one reference catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution

Note this specifically in that:
Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.
Click to expand...
Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that “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 . . . 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—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God” (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.
Click to expand...
So, the church doesn’t really say for definite one way or the other about our bodies. Just our souls.
 
My opinion is that God created Adam and Eve, miraculously, from the dust of the earth. But he based the human body on the highest form of list that had evolved on earth, what anthropologists called anatomically modern humans (AMH). So we have the same or similar genetics to the AMH, but unlike those predecessors, we have the ability to reason abstractly, free will, and an immortal soul.

It is dogma that all human persons are descendants of Adam and Eve; we inherit original sin as a result. We are all what anthropologists called behaviorally modern humans (BMH).

Science is not able to determine if the human population ever consisted of less than 10,000 persons. Genetics and archaeology do not have the precision needed to assert or rule out a smaller population.
 
Ron_Conte said:
My opinion is that God created Adam and Eve, miraculously, from the dust of the earth. But he based the human body on the highest form of list that had evolved on earth, what anthropologists called anatomically modern humans (AMH). So we have the same or similar genetics to the AMH, but unlike those predecessors, we have the ability to reason abstractly, free will, and an immortal soul.

It is dogma that all human persons are descendants of Adam and Eve; we inherit original sin as a result. We are all what anthropologists called behaviorally modern humans (BMH).

Science is not able to determine if the human population ever consisted of less than 10,000 persons. Genetics and archaeology do not have the precision needed to assert or rule out a smaller population.
Click to expand...
Could you please simplify your post for me?
 
Faith1960 said:
But how do you suppose Adam an Eve came about? I’m still learning toward evolution but wonder how Adam and Eve came about?
Click to expand...
Personally, I think they came about when God created them. I don’t really have proof or not for that, just personal belief. I just can’t right the evolution theory in my mind. Don’t get me wrong, I believe in evolution in a species. In other words, people get stronger, maybe taller. Or, in common example, the dark moths blend in better, so they survive and those traits continue. Basic strongest survive while the weak die out. I just don’t think that it is possible for the “stronger” traits to survive and then all of a sudden evolve a whole new species. So, I believe in evolution in species (which I see good proof for), but not evolution OF species (don’t have proof for)
 
Ron_Conte said:
Science is not able to determine if the human population ever consisted of less than 10,000 persons. Genetics and archaeology do not have the precision needed to assert or rule out a smaller population.
Click to expand...
Doesnt that go against our faith?
 
Faith1960 said:
Doesnt that go against our faith?
Click to expand...
That is exactly why we need fatih. Science is not always able to proof everything. But when science fails to provide answers, I can use my faith to obtain some of those answers. Sometimes, we won’t get an answers that we can understand, but that is ok. So, science failing to answer does not go against our faith. We have to use both science and faith, not one or the other. 🙂
 
Ron_Conte said:
It is dogma that all human persons are descendants of Adam and Eve; we inherit original sin as a result. We are all what anthropologists called behaviorally modern humans (BMH).
Click to expand...
Indeed. Here’s how Rev. Austriaco puts it:
"If the biological capacity for language presupposes the acquisition of a package of pro-language mutations in the human genome, as biologists assume, then I can imagine a scenario where two anatomically modern humans, each with a subset of these pro-language genetic mutations, mate and conceive children. Marriage partners are often exchanged between groups of hunter-gatherers dispersed over larger areas of land so I can imagine that the two mates would have come from two somewhat distinct but related gene pools each carrying distinctive language-related genes.

Their children would have inherited the complete package of pro-language genes, bringing together the genetic advantages of each of their parents, and thus, would have acquired a novel capacity for language. With God’s infusion of the human soul, they would be the first instances of behaviorally modern human infants surrounded by a tribe of closely related anatomically modern relatives who would not have full language capacity."
Ron_Conte said:
Science is not able to determine if the human population ever consisted of less than 10,000 persons. Genetics and archaeology do not have the precision needed to assert or rule out a smaller population.
Click to expand...
Rev. Austriaco distinguishes between anatomically modern humans (AMH) and behaviorally modern humans. The original AMHs would number, at minimum, in the thousands but the latter, according to Rev. Austriaco, indeed could have been as few as two.
 
cfauster said:
Indeed. Here’s how Rev. Austriaco puts it:
"If the biological capacity for language presupposes the acquisition of a package of pro-language mutations in the human genome, as biologists assume, then I can imagine a scenario where two anatomically modern humans, each with a subset of these pro-language genetic mutations, mate and conceive children. Marriage partners are often exchanged between groups of hunter-gatherers dispersed over larger areas of land so I can imagine that the two mates would have come from two somewhat distinct but related gene pools each carrying distinctive language-related genes.

Their children would have inherited the complete package of pro-language genes, bringing together the genetic advantages of each of their parents, and thus, would have acquired a novel capacity for language. With God’s infusion of the human soul, they would be the first instances of behaviorally modern human infants surrounded by a tribe of closely related anatomically modern relatives who would not have full language capacity."

Rev. Austriaco distinguishes between anatomically modern humans (AMH) and behaviorally modern humans. The original AMHs would number, at minimum, in the thousands but the latter, according to Rev. Austriaco, indeed could have been as few as two.
Click to expand...
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?
 
cfauster said:
Indeed. Here’s how Rev. Austriaco puts it:
"If the biological capacity for language presupposes the acquisition of a package of pro-language mutations in the human genome, as biologists assume, then I can imagine a scenario where two anatomically modern humans, each with a subset of these pro-language genetic mutations, mate and conceive children. Marriage partners are often exchanged between groups of hunter-gatherers dispersed over larger areas of land so I can imagine that the two mates would have come from two somewhat distinct but related gene pools each carrying distinctive language-related genes.

Their children would have inherited the complete package of pro-language genes, bringing together the genetic advantages of each of their parents, and thus, would have acquired a novel capacity for language. With God’s infusion of the human soul, they would be the first instances of behaviorally modern human infants surrounded by a tribe of closely related anatomically modern relatives who would not have full language capacity."

Rev. Austriaco distinguishes between anatomically modern humans (AMH) and behaviorally modern humans. The original AMHs would number, at minimum, in the thousands but the latter, according to Rev. Austriaco, indeed could have been as few as two.
Click to expand...
Is that polygenism?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top