Neanderthals, Adam, and Eve

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pearl_of_Tyburn
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Pearl_of_Tyburn

Guest
Hi, Everyone,

I know the Catholic Church has a pretty “open mind” when it comes to the scientific origins of humanity, since we know that however our bodies got to be the way they are, it was all part of God’s plan. But I’m wondering if there is a fine line with it all. Could our physical bodies have really derived from animals, meaning that our ancestors way back into the fogginess of infinity have been “soul-less”? What about the primitive neanderthals and the hunter-gathering tribes? Do we believe they had souls? And where would “our first parents” fit into this equasion?

Blessings,
Pearl
 
I don’t believe we evolved from Neanderthals or monkeys or slime or any of that stuff. I believe Neanderthals existed but they were not human and we did not come from them. God created mankind the way we are, no evolving took place. I don’t know if Neanderthals had souls or not, but they were not human and we didn’t come from them. 😉 They were just another of God’s creation that looked similar to humans but they did not have the Breath of Life God gave to humanity.
 
Pearl_of_Tyburn said:
Hi, Everyone,

I know the Catholic Church has a pretty “open mind” when it comes to the scientific origins of humanity, since we know that however our bodies got to be the way they are, it was all part of God’s plan. But I’m wondering if there is a fine line with it all. Could our physical bodies have really derived from animals, meaning that our ancestors way back into the fogginess of infinity have been “soul-less”? What about the primitive neanderthals and the hunter-gathering tribes? Do we believe they had souls? And where would “our first parents” fit into this equasion?

Blessings,
Pearl
Click to expand...
Well first, neanderthals were not only contemporaneous with early man,
thus not ancestral, they were not even the same species. They were a
cousin species, so to speak, closer to us than chimps, which is really
close, but still not the same as what we would consider human-human.

Genesis is not all literal, as science shows, but Genesis doesn’t have
to be “factual” for it to express Truth, if you understand. Evolution did
happen, God gave one hominid species a soul at some point, we do
not know when. While Genesis is not 100% literal, we can be sure
that humans were in a good stance before God, but then humans
did something that offended God, the First Sin. What was that
sin that God has us all cursed from birth for? My question is
“Does it really matter?” No, we sinned, God gave a story
to ancient people touching on that particular point.

We’re Sinners, We Need a Savior, Jesus is Savior, let’s go on from there.
 
Judas_Thaddeus said:
Well first, neanderthals were not only contemporaneous with early man,
thus not ancestral, they were not even the same species. They were a
cousin species, so to speak, closer to us than chimps, which is really
close, but still not the same as what we would consider human-human.

Genesis is not all literal, as science shows, but Genesis doesn’t have
to be “factual” for it to express Truth, if you understand. Evolution did
happen, God gave one hominid species a soul at some point, we do
not know when. While Genesis is not 100% literal, we can be sure
that humans were in a good stance before God, but then humans
did something that offended God, the First Sin. What was that
sin that God has us all cursed from birth for? My question is
“Does it really matter?” No, we sinned, God gave a story
to ancient people touching on that particular point.

We’re Sinners, We Need a Savior, Jesus is Savior, let’s go on from there.
Click to expand...
The Church teaches that the Human Race came from one man named Adam and one woman named Eve. and because of their sin, God sent us his son, our Savior. If that wasn’t true, then why the need for a Savior, the Son of God??? Seems I read somewhere that science has proven that the human race came from one woman proven by DNA. God Bless, Memaw
 
I am not a geneticists, but I have heard an eminent one talk on the subject of the “primordial” Adam and Eve, from the perspective of DNA analysis, and probably some other physical evidence. His take on things was that there is a strong indication of a “primordial Eve”, and quite possibly a “primordial Adam”, but that the two were separated in time in such a way that they could not possibly have met.

Keep in mind that, while the theories of Evolution and Natural Selection are supported by overwhelming evidence and can’t be refuted by anyone who understands the supporting evidence, the theories do continue to grow and change, as new techniques are applied, and new facts are discovered. Perhaps, one day there will be incontrovertible scientific evidence for Adam and Eve. Right now, the best informed in the field tell us that there is not.

The “ensoulment question” is a topic of debate among those who have a particular point of view to defend, but is not one that can be answered by science or reason. it is more of a faith issue.
 
Judas_Thaddeus said:
Well first, neanderthals were not only contemporaneous with early man,
thus not ancestral, they were not even the same species. They were a
cousin species, so to speak, closer to us than chimps, which is really
close, but still not the same as what we would consider human-human.
Click to expand...
As I understand it, Europeans and Asians have Neanderthal DNA in them; only sub-Saharan Africans are pure-blood Cro-Magnon. 🤷
 
Skye_Ariel said:
I don’t believe we evolved from Neanderthals or monkeys or slime or any of that stuff. I believe Neanderthals existed but they were not human and we did not come from them. God created mankind the way we are, no evolving took place. I don’t know if Neanderthals had souls or not, but they were not human and we didn’t come from them. 😉 They were just another of God’s creation that looked similar to humans but they did not have the Breath of Life God gave to humanity.
Click to expand...
And you know this to be a fact…how?
 
I believe that the Church teaches that Adam and Eve were real people, the first human beings (at least in the sense as us) and that they were created by a special act of God. I don’t know if God reaching into the Earth could be interpreted as evolution from hominins.
 
Ive been thinking about this lately. As stated above, most humans have neandarthal DNA so we now know we interbred with them. Also, it is apparent that they were much more intelligent than previously thought. It is no insult to suggest that despite their difference in appearence they might actually be human. Perhaps our first parents were neandarthals. A lost race of humanity now far gone. Just because they do not resemble “modern man” does not mean they were necessarially less evolved. Adam and Eve could have been neanderthals.
 
Memaw said:
The Church teaches that the Human Race came from one man named Adam and one woman named Eve. and because of their sin, God sent us his son, our Savior. If that wasn’t true, then why the need for a Savior, the Son of God??? Seems I read somewhere that science has proven that the human race came from one woman proven by DNA. God Bless, Memaw
Click to expand...
The Church does not require that our First Parents were named Adam and Eve or that they were the only humanlike creatures around in their time.

She does require that:
  1. There was a First Man who could represent all future humanity in a way even the First Woman could not. (The Genesis story says that even she was specially made from him, which isn’t how it usually happens but certainly could have been accomplished in that one case.)
  2. That guy committed a specific act of disobedience that lost him and all his descendants the friendship of God until God acted to repair the breach. (The specific act does not have to be the eating of a forbidden fruit, but something has to have happened to change things – Original Sin can’t be interpreted as just “the human condition” that has always been our lot.)
  3. No human being exists or has existed since those two who is not directly descended from them. That doesn’t mean there can’t have been a wider genetic pool than just two (Cain and Seth got those wives from somewhere), but there can be no lineages of true humans that are completely separate from those two.
Mitochondrial DNA does trace back to a common female ancestor of all current humans, and she’s sometimes called Mitochondrial Eve, but that doesn’t mean she’s “the” Eve. Scientists don’t claim there were no other women around in her time; she just happens to be the most recent common ancestor of every woman (and, by implication, every man) alive today. When it comes to discussing the reality of the Genesis stories, though, she and “Y-chromosome Adam” are red herrings.

Usagi
 
Usagi said:
The Church does not require that our First Parents were named Adam and Eve or that they were the only humanlike creatures around in their time.

She does require that:
  1. There was a First Man who could represent all future humanity in a way even the First Woman could not. (The Genesis story says that even she was specially made from him, which isn’t how it usually happens but certainly could have been accomplished in that one case.)
  2. That guy committed a specific act of disobedience that lost him and all his descendants the friendship of God until God acted to repair the breach. (The specific act does not have to be the eating of a forbidden fruit, but something has to have happened to change things – Original Sin can’t be interpreted as just “the human condition” that has always been our lot.)
  3. No human being exists or has existed since those two who is not directly descended from them. That doesn’t mean there can’t have been a wider genetic pool than just two (Cain and Seth got those wives from somewhere), but there can be no lineages of true humans that are completely separate from those two.
Mitochondrial DNA does trace back to a common female ancestor of all current humans, and she’s sometimes called Mitochondrial Eve, but that doesn’t mean she’s “the” Eve. Scientists don’t claim there were no other women around in her time; she just happens to be the most recent common ancestor of every woman (and, by implication, every man) alive today. When it comes to discussing the reality of the Genesis stories, though, she and “Y-chromosome Adam” are red herrings.

Usagi
Click to expand...
I’m gonna believe what the Church teaches and let science catch up with that. To be TRUTH, they can’t disagree! There had to be one man and one women that disobeyed God at the same time to have brought on the need for so great a Redeemer as Jesus Christ to suffer and die for our sins. That’s good enough for me. God Bless, Memaw
 
Memaw said:
The Church teaches that the Human Race came from one man named Adam and one woman named Eve.
Click to expand...
SOMEHOW, that is true, yes, but I can’t in good
conscious believe that Genesis is 100% literal,
which I assume is the point that you are making.
Memaw said:
and because of their sin, God sent us his son, our Savior.
Click to expand...
Of course.
Memaw said:
If that wasn’t true, then why the need for a Savior, the Son of God???
Click to expand...
When did I say that it wasn’t true? I think you missed my point.
I think what you actually mean is “If that wasn’t 100% literal fact…”
Memaw said:
Seems I read somewhere that science has proven that the human race came from one woman proven by DNA. God Bless, Memaw
Click to expand...
I could believe that, but if I recall correctly, we are talking
here about a woman in Africa, not Mesopotamia, which is
what’s demanded by the literal Creationists movement.
 
It is hard for me to believe that the beautiful cave art the Neanderthals left us, was a product of a soul-less species.
 
I won’t say a lot because there have already been some very good replies. For a time, I spent a lot of energy thinking about this. Honestly, I think it is a distraction, and I think we should not spend a lot of time worrying about this. I believe the earth is very old, Original Sin is the truth, all scripture is inspired by God, and that science and religion cannot be in conflict because God is the creator of science. How this all plays together - where Neanderthals come in and evolution - I doubt I will know in this lifetime, but I don’t think it is important to my belief in our Lord.

JMR
 
A common question.

"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).”

Peace,
Ed
 
jmr_1985 said:
I won’t say a lot because there have already been some very good replies. For a time, I spent a lot of energy thinking about this. Honestly, I think it is a distraction, and I think we should not spend a lot of time worrying about this. I believe the earth is very old, Original Sin is the truth, all scripture is inspired by God, and that science and religion cannot be in conflict because God is the creator of science. How this all plays together - where Neanderthals come in and evolution - I doubt I will know in this lifetime, but I don’t think it is important to my belief in our Lord.

JMR
Click to expand...
I agree, God Bless, Memaw
 
edwest2 said:
A common question.

"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).”

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Considering the context of his time, and also the rather controversial nature of his judgement with respect to the events of WW2, Pius XII might not be the best authority to turn to in this matter.
 
epan said:
Considering the context of his time, and also the rather controversial nature of his judgement with respect to the events of WW2, Pius XII might not be the best authority to turn to in this matter.
Click to expand...
You need to take that up with the HOLY SPIRIT and maybe stop believing everything you hear on the media. God Bless, Memaw
 
Memaw said:
I’m gonna believe what the Church teaches and let science catch up with that. To be TRUTH, they can’t disagree! There had to be one man and one women that disobeyed God at the same time to have brought on the need for so great a Redeemer as Jesus Christ to suffer and die for our sins. That’s good enough for me. God Bless, Memaw
Click to expand...
I agree! 👍
jmr_1985 said:
I won’t say a lot because there have already been some very good replies. For a time, I spent a lot of energy thinking about this. Honestly, I think it is a distraction, and I think we should not spend a lot of time worrying about this. I believe the earth is very old, Original Sin is the truth, all scripture is inspired by God, **and that science and religion cannot be in conflict because God is the creator of science. How this all plays together - where Neanderthals come in and evolution **- I doubt I will know in this lifetime, but I don’t think it is important to my belief in our Lord.

JMR
Click to expand...
That is one of the many things we will all learn when we get to Heaven. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top