Oldest modern humans and Eve

[Neithan]

Ghosty: are you positive the literal-historical Adam in Genesis is the actual single ancestor of* all *mankind? Are you sure this has been infallibly defined? I don’t think so, that would definitely throw things into confusion, and cause hecd2’s question to be more troubling than necessary.

 Here is an intriguing opinion I've been hearing:

The Adam in Genesis is a real literal-historical man, one individual, who lived about 10 000 years ago. He (and literal-historical Eve) are the actual, monogenetic ancestors of the Israelites, the ancient semitic race. His story, however, is symbolic of the ancestry of the entire human race, not literal.

It is probable that Genesis reveals the Adam and Eve creation story as both literal and symbolic. The Adam of all modern humans could symbolize more than one individual, but the actual Adam is one individual, from whom all Israelites are descended. What matters is, sin entered humanity and is passed on to all descendants of the original ancestors. Jesus is the “new Adam” in the sense that, he is both father of the Israelites of the old covenant, and extends this as “Adam” of all humanity in the new covenant. He brings all humanity into himself. Redeemer of all, Jews (literal-historical Genesis Adam) and Gentiles (figurative-symbolic Genesis Adam).
Thoughts?

 

[Steve_Andersen]

Exporter:

Steve AndersEn,

You wrote,". Thus, while our nuclear DNA is a mish-mash of the DNA of our four grandparents, our mitochondrial DNA is an almost exact copy of the DNA of our maternal grandmother (the match may not be exact due to mutations. In fact, the mutations in the mitochondrial DNA provide the molecular clock that allows us to determine how much time has elapsed since the ME lived)."

Would you please comment on the last sentance? What’s the relationship between the molecular clock and mitochondrial DNA. If you are saying that MDNA is a clock, what is the standard to which you compare it? Thanks.

Actually I didn’t write that
I coppied it from
here

to try and clarify that scieince is not perposing that ME is a common ancestor for all humans

The MDNA itself can be used as a molecular clock

As to the standard…I’m no molecular biologist but as I understand it they base the rate of change on observations and assumptions.

For instance if you have evidence that two populations have been isolated for X years that can be used as one of the (name removed by moderator)uts

I would imagine that they establish upper and lower estimates for the rate of change and compare that with data

This would establish a range of time rather than the precise-to-two-decimal-places number that many people think of when they hear the word “clock”

 

[BibleReader]

Hi, hecd2.

Probably, the Final Redactor of Genesis (the famous inspired “R” source in the “JEPRD” “Documentary Hypothesis” for the origin of the Torah, who may have been Jeremiah’s secretary Baruch) wasn’t trying to teach human origins or biological history. In Genesis 1, man seems to be created LAST of all of the creatures. In Genesis 2, man seems to be created FIRST of all of the creatures. All R did is “conflate” two separate, entirely different creation accounts, one by the “E” source, or Elohist, and the other by the “J” source or “Yahwist,” in Genesis 1-3. R wasn’t trying to run a biology class. He was teaching THEOLOGY.

 

[JP2Admirer]

**

Ghosty:

are you positive the literal-historical Adam in Genesis is the actual single ancestor of* all *mankind? Are you sure this has been infallibly defined? I don’t think so, that would definitely throw things into confusion, and cause hecd2’s question to be more troubling than necessary.

Here is an intriguing opinion I’ve been hearing:

The Adam in Genesis is a real literal-historical man, one individual, who lived about 10 000 years ago. He (and literal-historical Eve) are the actual, monogenetic ancestors of the Israelites, the ancient semitic race. His story, however, is symbolic of the ancestry of the entire human race, not literal.

It is probable that Genesis reveals the Adam and Eve creation story as both literal and symbolic. The Adam of all modern humans could symbolize more than one individual, but the actual Adam is one individual, from whom all Israelites are descended. What matters is, sin entered humanity and is passed on to all descendants of the original ancestors. Jesus is the “new Adam” in the sense that, he is both father of the Israelites of the old covenant, and extends this as “Adam” of all humanity in the new covenant. He brings all humanity into himself. Redeemer of all, Jews (literal-historical Genesis Adam) and Gentiles (figurative-symbolic Genesis Adam).

Thoughts?******

If this is true, then not all humans have original sin. (That is if I understand your post properly.)

 

[Ghosty]

That all human beings are descended truly from one Adam and one Eve is implicit in the dogma of Original Sin. There’s no way around this fact without destroying the dogma of Original Sin. It’s worth reading the whole Original Sin section of the Catechism for more information on this.

 

[buffalo]

Ghosty: are you positive the literal-historical Adam in Genesis is the actual single ancestor of* all *mankind? Are you sure this has been infallibly defined? I don’t think so, that would definitely throw things into confusion, and cause hecd2’s question to be more troubling than necessary.

  Here is an intriguing opinion I've been hearing:

The Adam in Genesis is a real literal-historical man, one individual, who lived about 10 000 years ago. He (and literal-historical Eve) are the actual, monogenetic ancestors of the Israelites, the ancient semitic race. His story, however, is symbolic of the ancestry of the entire human race, not literal.

It is probable that Genesis reveals the Adam and Eve creation story as both literal and symbolic. The Adam of all modern humans could symbolize more than one individual, but the actual Adam is one individual, from whom all Israelites are descended. What matters is, sin entered humanity and is passed on to all descendants of the original ancestors. Jesus is the “new Adam” in the sense that, he is both father of the Israelites of the old covenant, and extends this as “Adam” of all humanity in the new covenant. He brings all humanity into himself. Redeemer of all, Jews (literal-historical Genesis Adam) and Gentiles (figurative-symbolic Genesis Adam).

  Thoughts?

DID WOMAN EVOLVE FROM THE BEASTS?
A DEFENSE OF TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC DOCTRINE

     ***Rev.       Brian W. Harrison, O.S., M.A., S.T.D.
   Associate Professor of Theology,***

     ***Pontifical       Catholic University of Puerto Rico***

 

[puzzleannie]

Leaving aside for a moment Catholic doctrine on creation, what the original poster’s essay proves is not that science has the competence to discover whether or not modern humans are all descended from one man and one woman, but that science has the competence to make observations about the created worlds and to make deductions based on those observations. From those deductions, complex theories can be designed to explain all those observations and deductions. What the essay also points out is that the value of the deductions and the resultant theories are only as good as the original observations, and that new information is being added to that mix of observations all the time by other scientists, and that therefore the deductions, conclusions and theories have to change to explain the new information.

Therefore the competence of science extends only as far as the validity of the observations, and whether the data used to make those deductions includes all the facts, has properly interpreted what has been observed, and has taken into account all factors, including those for which no observable information has been uncovered or reported.

 

[Neithan]

Okay, I was wrong. Monogenism is definitely the only way to interpret the ancestry of Man, if one wishes to keep Catholic infallibility intact. BUT, the article cited above by buffalo confirms that the opening of Genesis consists of both figurative-symbolic AND literal-historic language:

Like Pius XII in 1950, the Biblical Commission in 1909 had already denied that we should expect modern or scientifically exact terminology in these ancient narratives, and had noted that the inspired author’s intention was “to hand down popular information to his own race, according to the forms of speech common at that time, and accommodated to the sense-experience and intellectual level of ordinary people.” Like Pius XII in 1950, the same 1909 decision already freely acknowledged that not everything in Genesis 1-3 is to be taken literally, since those chapters contain expressions which are “manifestly” used in a way that is “metaphorical” or “anthropomorphic” (cf. DS 3516).

We have already noted that from patristic times onwards Catholic exegetes have recognized a certain amount of figurative, anthropomorphic symbolism in these texts which by no means detracts from their substantial historicity.

What troubles me about the article is mentioned in the conclusion:

Karl Rahner, among others, has said that once we accept an evolutionary origin for the male human being, we can scarcely deny it for the female. On the basis of that kind of logic—which may or may not be watertight—the reverse would appear to be an equally valid inference: that is, once Catholics return to recognizing the *non-**evolutionary origin of the female human being as a truth taught by God’s Word, they can scarcely uphold an evolutionary origin for the male

The author makes a strong case to assert that the Church teaches/taught infallibly that women did not evolve naturally, and that Genesis 2:21-23 is literal truth in the sense that woman literally came from man, Eve from Adam’s side. Unfortunately, the argument that this is in line with reason is terribly weak, and a simple 'believe it ‘cause it’s written’ approach is used and apparently left as sufficient. Not really.

I guess we are inclined to believe that either Adam was himself “specially created” and Eve from his side in a dual miracle, or that Adam evolved naturally as the first true man (the first corporeal creature to be given an immortal spirit), and, seeing how suddenly different he was from his bipedal hominid ancestors, felt alone in the world. God then had Eve miraculously made as a perfect human female companion.

In the 1996 letter to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope John Paul II stated that evolution is “more than a hypothesis.” Though it’s far from claiming evolution as a scientific truth, it definitely leaves the door open. Doesn’t that itself call into question this infallibly defined dogma (of human woman’s “special creation”)? I’m confused. Unfortunately the author of the above article doesn’t address this particular case.

The Cathechism mentions much symbolism involved in the creation story, and I think one can remain in the bounds of orthodoxy and maintain that there could be a symbolic split between the historic Adam of Chapter 5 and beyond (in which his lineage is discussed) and the *figurative *Adam of 1-3. I think the latter is the first actual human man who ever existed (from whom all now living are descended), and the former is the ancestor of the semitic race, as he could only have lived 10 000 years ago or less, during Neolithic times. Our most-recent common male ancestor (Y-chromosome “Adam”) is something like 60 000 years ago, and mitochondrial Eve was 150 000 years ago, so how can the two narratives refer to the same people?

And, since a Catholic must accept monogenism, there’s still that sticky question about the pesky 10 000 population bottleneck…

 

[Ahimsa]

I don’t see how “monogenism” is inconsistent with the bottleneck.

Among that population of 10,000 (let’s say around 200,000 BCE) Adam and Eve could have existed. They had children, and their children interbred with the not-yet-humans, producing children with souls and original sin. This process would have continued until the total population of, lets say 50,000 BCE, could claim descent from Adam and Eve.

 

[buffalo]

puzzleannie:

Leaving aside for a moment Catholic doctrine on creation, what the original poster’s essay proves is not that science has the competence to discover whether or not modern humans are all descended from one man and one woman, but that science has the competence to make observations about the created worlds and to make deductions based on those observations. From those deductions, complex theories can be designed to explain all those observations and deductions. What the essay also points out is that the value of the deductions and the resultant theories are only as good as the original observations, and that new information is being added to that mix of observations all the time by other scientists, and that therefore the deductions, conclusions and theories have to change to explain the new information.

Therefore the competence of science extends only as far as the validity of the observations, and whether the data used to make those deductions includes all the facts, has properly interpreted what has been observed, and has taken into account all factors, including those for which no observable information has been uncovered or reported.

Atheists continually disparage Catholics for using inductive reasoning as a “proof” of God. How come scientists using the same reasoning get a pass?

 

[Stevereeno]

Neithan:

In the 1996 letter to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope John Paul II stated that evolution is “more than a hypothesis.” Though it’s far from claiming evolution as a scientific truth, it definitely leaves the door open. Doesn’t that itself call into question this infallibly defined dogma (of human woman’s “special creation”)? I’m confused. Unfortunately the author of the above article doesn’t address this particular case.

The key to understanding this seeming quandary is to realize that no pope or council has ever suggested that MAN EVOLVED. Quite the opposite, in fact.

 

[Genesis315]

Stevereeno:

The key to understanding this seeming quandary is to realize that no pope or council has ever suggested that MAN EVOLVED.

Remember too, the soul cannot evolve; it can only be created. And man is not man without his soul.

 

[Ghosty]

Remember too, the soul cannot evolve; it can only be created. And man is not man without his soul.

Bingo! If I had prizes I’d hand them out

Among that population of 10,000 (let’s say around 200,000 BCE) Adam and Eve could have existed. They had children, and their children interbred with the not-yet-humans, producing children with souls and original sin. This process would have continued until the total population of, lets say 50,000 BCE, could claim descent from Adam and Eve.

My thoughts exactly. If the human body is biological in nature, but true humanity is a body plus a soul, then I see no reason why such a hypothesis is problem. The Church does NOT teach that we inherit our souls from our parents, but that God immediately creates every individual human soul. If God can give a human soul to mud and make it genetically a human body, then God can give a human soul to a human body conceived between a true human and a genetic human. This solves both dilemmas handily without raising any substantial new ones (besides people just not liking the idea of it). Original Sin is still transmitted to all people, the genetic diversity we see among modern humans is adequately accounted for, and all people absolutely claim descent from Adam and Eve.

 

[Stevereeno]

Ghosty:

If the human body is biological in nature, but true humanity is a body plus a soul… The Church does NOT teach that we inherit our souls from our parents, but that God immediately creates every individual human soul.

Bingo! Keep your prize. The Church, in fact, teaches that our first parents (body and soul) were created immediately. From the Council of Cologne:

"Our first parents were formed immediately by God. Therefore we declare that…those who…assert…man…emerged from spontaneous continuous change of imperfect nature to the more perfect, is clearly opposed to Sacred Scripture and to the Faith.”

Ghosty:

If God can give a human soul to mud and make it genetically a human body, then God can give a human soul to a human body conceived between a true human and a genetic human. This solves both dilemmas handily without raising any substantial new ones (besides people just not liking the idea of it).

There is no dilema if you would faithfully accept traditional Church teaching. It is you who does not like the idea of standing up for your faith in the shadow of Almighty Science. Clearly, you have made your faith subordinate to science to avoid ridicule.

 

[Neithan]

"Our first parents were formed immediately by God. Therefore we declare that…those who…assert…man…emerged from spontaneous continuous change of imperfect nature to the more perfect, is clearly opposed to Sacred Scripture and to the Faith.”

Does this mean that this very website, Catholic Answers, is teaching
heresy? Why do they have a Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur?

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.

I think this question has been done to death. As it stands today, the special creation of Adam’s body is not dogma. Whether the special creation of Eve’s body is infallibly defined or not, I’m not sure (see above article cited by buffalo).

 

[Ghosty]

Steven Anderson: You apparently need to do more research on the subject. As Neithan pointed out the tract published by Catholic Answers has Nihil Obstat, meaning that it has been deemed to not contain any doctrinal errors by Church authority. The tract states that the Church accepts the possible evolution of the human body from other life forms. I repeat that this teaching has Nihil Obstat.

I’m backed by the teaching authority of the Church and the teachings of the Pope, you are backed by private interpretation of a Provincial Council. When your argument that evolution is unacceptable is given Nihil Obstat, or even backed by the Magesterium and not merely the private interpretation of certain theologians, let me know. I feel much more comfortable resting with the teaching authority of the Church on this one.

EDIT: Yes, I’m aware that Nihil Obstat is based on the views of the Bishop and reviewer in question, and doesn’t necessarily mean that the writing is infallible. The point remains, however, that the writings in question that have indeed received Nihil Obstat are perfectly in line with the current Pope’s teachings on evolution, and the traditional teaching of the Church.

 

[Chris_W]

I hope this is not an idoitic question, but it has been on my mind for a while:

If God did create Adam and Eve by special creation (I’m only saying IF) then isn’t it possible that God could create them in such a way that their DNA or our DNA looks as if there was a pool of no less than 10,000 people from whom we all descended? I mean, who’s to say what Adam and Eve’s DNA looked like? Can science disprove this possibility, considering that fact that God can act in ways contrary to the laws of nature (miracles)?

Don’t mock me please…it’s just a question.

 

[Neithan]

Chris W: your question is common, and is the argument used by many who support everything from special creation only of the first humans, to a 6000 year old young earth which suddenly appeared with all fossils, geological and molecular data seeming to date back millions of years.

It is an interesting idea, and definitely within God’s power, but I would argue against it. There would be no good reason for God to do this except if he wished to deceive us. I don’t believe that our perfectly good God, who wishes us to know the Truth in all its fullness, would deliberately deceive us as to our origins. The story in Genesis can be interpreted as either evolution or special creation, and it is up to us to decide which of those, by science and reason, is true. To allow room for God’s deliberate deception opens up insurmountable philosophical difficulties, and in effect there would be no way to recognize truth from fiction.

 

[JimG]

Another question: If anthropology postulates that the first true humans existed some 10,000 to 20,000 years ago, why do those humans not display such “human” characteristics as having a recorded history? Yes, I realize that many civilizations including ancient Israel, had extensive oral histories, but they all had language. Humans have intellect and free will, and generally language. Is there any evidence that these early homo sapiens were human in the same way that, say, the earliest humans of recorded history were human? I don’t know enough of the scientific aspect of this. How does “anthropological” humanity compare with “historical” humanity?

 

[Steve_Andersen]

Ghosty:

Steven AndersEn: You apparently need to do more research on the subject.

Do I?

Ghosty:

As Neithan pointed out the tract published by Catholic Answers has Nihil Obstat, meaning that it has been deemed to not contain any doctrinal errors by Church authority.

I am unfamiliar with that term
(I’m just a simple engineer, I don’t speak much foreign)

Nihil…is that Roy Odstat’s brother….”Only the Lonely…da da da dum ee do whaaa….”

What have I said that goes against the track?

Ghosty:

The tract states that the Church accepts the possible evolution of the human body from other life forms. I repeat that this teaching has Nihil Obstat.

Didn’t I say that?

Or course the Church accepts it. Why would it do otherwise?

They learned their lesson after that Galileo thing not to dabble in science.

Ghosty:

…………………………When your argument that evolution is unacceptable is given Nihil Obstat, or even backed by the Magesterium and not merely the private interpretation of certain theologians, let me know.

You obviously have me mistaken for someone else. I’m the guy with the Darwin statue on the dashboard of my car.