Modern Genetics and Adam & Eve

  • Thread starter Thread starter averheyen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
From the Catholic Answers Library:

"It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history, even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use.

"Adam and Eve: Real People

"It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

"In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “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 either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents 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 that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).

“The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).”

Original Sin is passed on to all.

Peace,
Ed
 
We know all that, Ed.

But the interpretation of the text from “Communion and Stewardship” is at issue here. What does that particular text really imply?
 
Does Modern Genetic research disprove that all human beings are descendents of the first two humans Adam and Eve? Yes or no and why or why not.
No.
There are mountains of genetic speculations based on anthills of assumptions.
 
Didn’t the latest report trace all humans to one mother?
Living at the same time as this “mother”, were other females who did not bear children with the particular gene(s) which were researched.

To learn about the true parents of humanity, read the* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition*.
 
Of course, but that is not the point here. What this document appears to allude to is that it may not just have been two individual creatures that God breathed a soul into, but a population.
Allude? Who? Those who appreciate Matthew Fox?
 
No.
There are mountains of genetic speculations based on anthills of assumptions.
Bingo!

The thing about science is that much of it is as based on faith as Catholicism.

Theories by nature are based on faith because you are assuming that some factor of the theory is true without having proof.

When evolution is talked about people forget that there is no direct evidance of it. There are lots of secondary (or greater) theories that people seem to prove it, but in the end they are relying on an assumption to prove their point.

It’s really no different than us believing in God. We cannot prove it directly. We have some nice theories and logic. In the end, it’s faith that is our proof. 😃
 
When evolution is talked about people forget that there is no direct evidance of it. There are lots of secondary (or greater) theories that people seem to prove it, but in the end they are relying on an assumption to prove their point.
You are being lied to. There is ample evidence of evolution. Every time a bacterium evolves immunity to an antibiotic there is more evidence added to the pile.

Do not trust creationist websites that lie to you.

rossum
 
You are being lied to. There is ample evidence of evolution. Every time a bacterium evolves immunity to an antibiotic there is more evidence added to the pile.

Do not trust creationist websites that lie to you.

rossum
Sigh, am I on a Southern Baptist or a Catholic forum. If people want to be ignorant that’s their problem but they shouldn’t constantly derail discussion by posting “science is silly and we shouldn’t pay attention to it”, “evolution is just a theory” etc.

All the scienceophobes here should seriously think of becoming Amish and should stop using their computers to post on here (since of course they were developed by science and not the Church)

We should start a thread on the subject where you can only post in the thread if you accept modern evolutionary theory, would cut a lot of the ****.
 
This form of free thought ends when only certain thoughts are allowed.

Peace,
Ed
 
You are being lied to. There is ample evidence of evolution. Every time a bacterium evolves immunity to an antibiotic there is more evidence added to the pile.

Do not trust creationist websites that lie to you.

rossum
My point isn’t that evolution isn’t legit, just that when it comes down to it there isn’t and real proof that proves it. If so, go all the way back in the process and show me the evidence of each step and every step from the beginning. You cannot be intellectually honest and say that you know for certain that evolution happened the way science says. Just like we can’t use science to prove that God exists. Granted, there is more science saying that evolution happened than that says God exists but the point is neither is a certainty.
 
You are being lied to. There is ample evidence of evolution. Every time a bacterium evolves immunity to an antibiotic there is more evidence added to the pile.

Do not trust creationist websites that lie to you.

rossum
The evidence show adaptation, HGT, memory, etc…

**Superbugs abound in soil Survey of bacteria reveals an array of antibiotic-resistance.
**

Scientists have discovered how bacteria fend off a wide range of antibiotics, and blocking that defense mechanism could give existing antibiotics more power to fight dangerous infections.
 
Y chromosome Adam Hi John, I enjoy your blog very much. I’ve been reading a lot recently on human origins and genetics (most recently, for example, Nicholas Wade’s book Before the Dawn).
One issue that I find does not seem to be clear in popular science accounts, and I thought you could clarify— around the so-called Y-Chromosome Adam (or Mitochondrial Eve). Have geneticists determined that “Adam” was actually an individual in the ancestral population? Or is this shorthand for what I understand to be a ‘deme’ or a subpopulation within the ancestral population.
There is a unique ancestor for the Y chromosome, so it is really an individual. As in the case of the mtDNA, this would not be the only man who was alive at that time, it is just inevitable that at some point all the other Y chromosome lineages have become extinct.
The reason you haven’t heard too much about it lately is that there is a huge dispute about how long ago the Y chromosome ancestor lived. Most estimates put it within the last 70,000 years, which is too young. But we don’t really know how much too young. I expect we’ll have better estimates upon whole-genome sequencing, but not yet.
 
This form of free thought ends when only certain thoughts are allowed.

Peace,
Ed
True, but that doesn’t mean we have to dignify pseudoscientific views with an answer.

Especially when the holders of such views only hold them due to ulterior motives rather than actual intellectual assent. (motives which are quite unnecessary too)

And are not really interested in contributing to or furthering the discussion but would rather see it derailed into the same old endless cycle of refuting:
‘evolution is only a theory’,
‘so what?, the Pope says this so you must be wrong’,
‘have you heard about IDvolution,…?’,
‘science is silly, sure its theories can predict all this stuff and let us watch TV and drive to work, but in the end it’s based on faith just like the Church’ (except the Church fails at predicting stuff)
‘this out of context quote from a scientific journal proves that evolution is false!’
‘science is the work of atheists and Satan and we must have nothing to do with it!’ (unless we need modern medical treatment and our faith doesn’t quite stretch to leaving it all in God’s hands)
‘while I admit the fossil record is more complete than it was two decades ago - the fact that you can’t show me a transitional specimen between hominid X and hominid Y, proves evolution must be wrong!’
‘can’t you people see, if evolution is true it logically follows that God doesn’t exist!’
( I have followed quite read quite a few of these evolution/genesis threads on here so know how they tend to pan out)

So then, I said before that we need a new thread, lets make that two new threads, both on the same topic, one will be for everyone who accepts modern evolutionary theory and the other can be for everyone who does not. 🙂

Make sense?
 
My point isn’t that evolution isn’t legit, just that when it comes down to it there isn’t and real proof that proves it.
No theory in science is ever proven; all theories are up for replacement if a better theory is found.

Newton’s theory of gravitation was used successfully for hundreds of years, yet it was never “proved”. Just as well because it was replaced by Einstein’s theory. We already know that Einstein’s theory has problems with its link to quantum mechanics so in time Einstein’s theory is going to be replaced by a new theory of Quantum Gravity.

No scientific theory is ever “proven”, and the Theory of Evolution is no exception. This common Creationist argument is just another creationist lie, lying by omission in this case.
If so, go all the way back in the process and show me the evidence of each step and every step from the beginning.
Certainly. Here is a step by step annotation of the evolution of an Irreducibly Complex system from a non-IC beginning: Line of Descent.

When you have read that, please let me know what Jesus had for breakfast every day between the ages of ten and fifteen. You are asking for more detail than is available, another common Creationist exercise in misdirection.
You cannot be intellectually honest and say that you know for certain that evolution happened the way science says.
Science goes as far as “beyond reasonable doubt”. Evolution has that in spades. Science will never be able to show anything beyond unreasonable doubt; witness the continuing arguments for geocentrism we see.

Evolution happens. We can observe it happening. It took two years between the release of Methycillin and the evolution of Methycillin resistance in MRSA.

rossum
 
Sigh, am I on a Southern Baptist or a Catholic forum. If people want to be ignorant that’s their problem but they shouldn’t constantly derail discussion by posting “science is silly and we shouldn’t pay attention to it”, “evolution is just a theory” etc.

All the scienceophobes here should seriously think of becoming Amish and should stop using their computers to post on here (since of course they were developed by science and not the Church)

We should start a thread on the subject where you can only post in the thread if you accept modern evolutionary theory, would cut a lot of the ****.
Seems to me that you have already been challenged to do so in the Back Fence Forum.😃

However, after you described 21st century modern scientific disciplines, you would have to allow open discussion according to two sticky notes which contain specific guidelines.

Blessings,
granny
😉
 
This is taken from The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (TAN 1974):

The whole human race stems from one single human pair. This teaching pertains to the Faith. It is theologically certain. It is a doctrine on which the Teaching Authority of the Church has not yet finally pronounced, but whose truth is guaranteed by its intrinsic connection with the doctrine of Revelation. Whilst not a dogma, the unity of the human race is a necessary pre-supposition of the dogma of Original Sin and Redemption.

This is a a sententia certa position regarding monogenism and is therefore up for modification and adjustment in light of new information. What is not up for change are the following:
  • Our first progenitors sinned grievously through transgressing a divine commandment
  • Our first progenitors became subject to death and evil influence
  • Adam’s sin is transmitted to his descendants
These are de fide statments and part of Catholic dogma. The issue is does new scientific findings contradict infallible teachings?
 
The issue is does new scientific findings contradict infallible teachings?
They do not have to. Adam was a human with a soul. If you consider that the other ‘humans’ who lived at the same time as Adam did not have souls then both the theological and the biological requirements are satisfied.

Souls are directly from God, no biologist considers that souls evolved. Biology only considers the physical body.

rossum
 
They do not have to. Adam was a human with a soul. If you consider that the other ‘humans’ who lived at the same time as Adam did not have souls then both the theological and the biological requirements are satisfied.

Souls are directly from God, no biologist considers that souls evolved. Biology only considers the physical body.

rossum
Unfortunately, separating human nature into a theological realm so that it is distinct from biological considerations kills the human person. That is the Catholic perspective of death.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top