Oldest modern humans and Eve

[Chris_W]

Stevereeno:

Chris, there is alot more at stake than you may think. Take, for example, the Sacred Tradition that death and suffering are a direct result of Original Sin. Clearly, if we accept the evolution of man, this Catholic dogma will need to be thrown out along with the Book of Wisdom (which states that God did not make death). France’s prestigious newspaper ‘Le Monde’ states it more eloquently than me:

“From the moment that it is accepted that man is not born from the finger of God, but evolved progressively from the animal state, the way of understanding the existence of evil, sickness and suffering in the world must be revised. Keeping up with the demands imposed by the scientific community, leaves the Church with an abyss opening under its feet.”

I don’t see how problems will not snowball when one tampers with Original Sin or it’s effects.

Indeed. I agree completely.

What I do not understand is the approach that Catholic evolutionists seem to take to the difficulties, at least from my perspective. It seems like all the energy is put into revising our understanding of Catholicism so as to fit the “fact” of evolution.

I take the exact opposite approach: I look at the limitations of science (and there are many) and try to see how the scientific evidence can be interpreted in light of the Truth of Catholicism. I guess I just don’t understand why once a person accepts the theory of evolution, the mindset seems to evolve (like that pun?) into focusing on the the “fact” of evolution first and foremost, while the truths of Catholicism are crammed into little pockets of possibitity such that other evolutionists won’t get upset at the Catholic evolutionists’ claims.

It just seems like evolution is presented as the ultimate truth…and that is the cause of my discomfort in seeing the continued and seemingly growing acceptance of the theory.

 

[Stevereeno]

Chris W:

What I do not understand is the approach that Catholic evolutionists seem to take to the difficulties, at least from my perspective. It seems like all the energy is put into revising our understanding of Catholicism so as to fit the “fact” of evolution.

I hear you, brother.
Chris W:

I guess I just don’t understand why once a person accepts the theory of evolution, the mindset seems to evolve (like that pun?) into focusing on the the “fact” of evolution first and foremost, while the truths of Catholicism are crammed into little pockets of possibitity such that other evolutionists won’t get upset at the Catholic evolutionists’ claims.

Maybe they enjoy “chasing their own tails”.

 

[Ghosty]

Chris_W: I know you are searching here. My second quote was actually from Buffalo, and a response from him. I tend not to put the names of the people I quote from the thread along with the quote in hopes that it’s redundant. It’s a matter of laziness on my part

The tone early on in this thread seemed to be that the Church’s teaching (on Original Sin for example) is “at stake”. I disagree with this notion completely.

Yes, that comes from previous discussions with hecd2. It’s been his position that the Church must “change or die”, which is a position I adamantly disagree with as well. I simply wish to point out that, at this time, the Magisterium sees nothing contradictory with the deposit of faith in the information hecd2 has posted. This brings me to…

stevereeno:

Consider what Pope Leo XIII said:

“We call to mind facts well-known to all and doubtful to no-one: after He formed man from the slime of the earth on the sixth day of creation, and breathed into his face the breath of life, God willed to give him a female companion, whom He drew forth wondrously from the man’s side as he slept.”

Last I heard the Magisterium speaks for and clarifies Papal statements, not you. The current Magisterium has said that certain theories of evolution do not contradict the deposit of faith. Either you believe the Magisterium is wrong, or you are unintentionally misunderstanding what Pope Leo XIII was writing. Here’s the slippery slope: if the Magisterium is wrong now, what made it right when Pope Leo XIII wrote what he did (or rather your interpretation of it)?

Let me ask you honestly and directly: do you believe that the Magisterium, and the Pope, currently have teaching authority? This is an absolutely critical question in understanding where you are coming from.

Take, for example, the Sacred Tradition that death and suffering are a direct result of Original Sin.

Actually it’s the death and suffering of humans that entered the world with Original Sin, the rest of the world merely became “bound to decay” (decadence, not rotting. Just read the Latin if you don’t believe me). Scripture, quite frankly, isn’t interested in the state of other creatures except in how they relate directly to humans and our Fall and Salvation.

 

[Ghosty]

What I do not understand is the approach that Catholic evolutionists seem to take to the difficulties, at least from my perspective. It seems like all the energy is put into revising our understanding of Catholicism so as to fit the “fact” of evolution.

I take the exact opposite approach: I look at the limitations of science (and there are many) and try to see how the scientific evidence can be interpreted in light of the Truth of Catholicism. I guess I just don’t understand why once a person accepts the theory of evolution, the mindset seems to evolve (like that pun?) into focusing on the the “fact” of evolution first and foremost, while the truths of Catholicism are crammed into little pockets of possibitity such that other evolutionists won’t get upset at the Catholic evolutionists’ claims.

Speaking for myself, my interest in threads like this is purely to defend the Magisterium and the Church! You see, fanatical Young Earthers and evolutionists like hecd2 are really two sides of the same coin. Both question the teaching authority of the Church due to the erroneous perception that the Church has somehow “waivered” in its teachings. My interest in such threads begins and ends with defending the Church. If you read back over my posts from the first on this thread, you’ll see that my interest has always been in defending the Pillar of Truth, the Church, and not in defending evolution per se.

I’m involved in sciences and biology by profession (medicine) and so I’m very familiar with the theories, and I’m a conservative Catholic by faith, so I have an unwavering belief and trust in the Magisterium and the Church in general. The Church says certain theories of evolution are apparently sound according to the faith, so I defend Her with both my knowledge of my faith and my knowledge in the sciences. I simply don’t like it when folks on either side of the coin attack the Magisterium, which is what they both inevitably do.

 

[Stevereeno]

Ghosty:

Last I heard the Magisterium speaks for and clarifies Papal statements, not you. The current Magisterium has said that certain theories of evolution do not contradict the deposit of faith. Either you believe the Magisterium is wrong, or you are unintentionally misunderstanding what Pope Leo XIII was writing. Here’s the slippery slope: if the Magisterium is wrong now, what made it right when Pope Leo XIII wrote what he did (or rather your interpretation of it)?

Oh, here we go again. Go read the document that buffalo has posted a bunch of times. In it, Fr. Brian Harrison (i.e., part of the Magisterium) translates what Pope Leo states.

 

[Stevereeno]

Ghosty:

Where has the Magisterium stated that we must believe that the bodies of Adam and Eve came from brute-stock? That is all I would like to know.

 

[Ghosty]

Fr. Brian Harrison is not a part of the Magisterium; he is a priest and a professor. The Magisterium is the Pope, the Council of Bishops in union with the Pope, and organs assigned to specific jurisdictions, such as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith headed by Cardinal Ratzinger. Fr. Brian Harrison is a theologian, and not even a bishop. His translations and interpretations are not even remotely binding, espescially when they contridict the Pope and Council of Bishops; his work is not authoritative, and it’s certainly not even close to infallible.

This is not meant as a slight against him in any way, just a statement of fact that he has no authority in these matters regardless of his intelligence and education.

Where has the Magisterium stated that we must believe that the bodies of Adam and Eve came from brute-stock? That is all I would like to know.

Strawman. Nobody has made such a claim. The point I and others have been trying to make is that the Church hasn’t declared Young Earth ideas nor certain theories of evolution as binding on Catholics. We are free to believe according to our own concience and reason within the bounds that the Church has laid out (i.e. all descend from Adam and Eve, Adam and Eve were real people, Original Sin is present in all humanity, ect.)

 

[Luke-Jr]

If I understand correctly, MDNA changes a very small, predictable amount over generations. The MDNA samples similar enough to determine the ME’s MDNA. Using this, the number of changes from the ME can be used to calculate the number of generations in between.

Two things I haven’t seen considered here:

1. The rate at which generations pass varies. I doubt it is completely irrelevant if PersonA is 10 generations descended from the ME and PersonB is 20 generations.
2. Supposedly, Adam and Eve’s DNA structure would need to be completely different for MDNA to have ended up how it is today. What is wrong with this theory/possibility?: The original human MDNA mixed the same way most human DNA does today. Over generations, the MDNA would change/mutate less than it did in its ancestors. Now, after so many generations, the MDNA changes so little that when it does it is seen as a mutation and not really a normal change.

 

[Ghosty]

1. The rate at which generations pass varies. I doubt it is completely irrelevant if PersonA is 10 generations descended from the ME and PersonB is 20 generations.

That’s why we speak in terms of generations and not years. Otherwise we’d speak in terms of exact year and date for “Mitochondrial Eve”. When you hear “M.E. lived 180,000 years ago,” it’s just an approximation based on the assumed length of a generation. The real measurement is in generations.

1. Supposedly, Adam and Eve’s DNA structure would need to be completely different for MDNA to have ended up how it is today. What is wrong with this theory/possibility?: The original human MDNA mixed the same way most human DNA does today. Over generations, the MDNA would change/mutate less than it did in its ancestors. Now, after so many generations, the MDNA changes so little that when it does it is seen as a mutation and not really a normal change.

DNA and mDNA are different things in this discussion. What I was saying about the DNA structure being different has no application to discussions of mDNA because mDNA is never combined with outside mDNA. Regardless, to say that Adam and Eve had a different DNA structure is to say that they were not biologically the same species as us. You end up with the same issue of “evolution”, but this time after we supposedly emerge as a “type”. Saying that evolution on the level you describe occured after Adam and Eve is to say that we are a different species from them altogether.

 

[Luke-Jr]

Ghosty:

DNA and mDNA are different things in this discussion.

I’m aware of that.

Ghosty:

What I was saying about the DNA structure being different has no application to discussions of mDNA because mDNA is never combined with outside mDNA.

I am theorising that at one time, it was.

Ghosty:

Regardless, to say that Adam and Eve had a different DNA structure is to say that they were not biologically the same species as us.

I am not theorising that there was a different structure. Only that the details of it were different (rapid mDNA mutation instead of slow like today). I am suggesting no more of a difference in DNA than there would be between you and I.

Ghosty:

You end up with the same issue of “evolution”, but this time after we supposedly emerge as a “type”. Saying that evolution on the level you describe occured after Adam and Eve is to say that we are a different species from them altogether.

If you want to classify genetic differences from one generation to the next as “evolution”, then that is what I am theorising about. Nothing more. I do not believe in evolutionism as presented by modern society as a supposed “fact”.

 

[Ghosty]

I am theorising that at one time, it was.

There’s no reason to believe that mDNA was ever carried in the sperm. To my knowledge there is no species today that does this. It’s a pretty far out theory, IMO, but you’re welcome to it.

I am not theorising that there was a different structure. Only that the details of it were different (rapid mDNA mutation instead of slow like today). I am suggesting no more of a difference in DNA than there would be between you and I.

The problem with this idea is that the details are based on the structure. DNA works the way it does because it’s built the way it is. If the difference between your and my DNA was as radical as you are suggesting, we wouldn’t be of the same species; we wouldn’t be able to “reproduce according to our kind”.

If you want to classify genetic differences from one generation to the next as “evolution”, then that is what I am theorising about. Nothing more. I do not believe in evolutionism as presented by modern society as a supposed “fact”.

The thing is that you’re proposing a difference in DNA structure between generations that is greater than the difference of that between you and a frog. Again, you’re welcome to believe it, but I think that there are more problems in reconciling those theories with the Truth as defined by the Church than with traditional evolutionary theories.

 

[Chris_W]

Ghosty:

Speaking for myself, my interest in threads like this is purely to defend the Magisterium and the Church!

Precisely the stance I wish all Catholics would take.

I have re-read your posts in this thread, as you suggested, and I do have a couple questions for you though, bearing in mind what we just said:

My first question is this: In one post you said;

Ghosty:

My challenge to you, hecd2, is to demonstrate that the Church teaches that mixing between true humans and human-shaped animals (biological humans with an animal soul) is an impossibility. Until then you’ve not caught the Church in any kind of contridiction with science.

If I understand you correctly, are you suggesting that the first humans (Adam and Eve) or their immeidate offspring mated with animals (hominoid brutes)? This has been suggested by christian evolutionists in other threads but I see this as very problematic.

The Church is pretty clear on the teaching about the relationship between a man and a woman, and it always involves an intimate love, a relfection of the love between persons of the Triune God, or God and the Church. Is it reasonable to think that the first humans became one flesh in a loving relationship with soulless hominoid animal brutes? Or is it reasonable to think that God now * expects this type of relationship between a man and a woman, but did not * have this expectation in the beginning, and in fact by design intended for loveless procreation?
**
My second question is this: You told me, in answer to my questions, that it is impossible for mankind to have descended biologically and exclusively from a single original pair, because of the genetic evidence. Yet you also believe in the virgin birth which would definatley contradict genetics. Can you comment on why the same rules do not apply in the origin of Jesus and the origin of the human race?

Please understand that my questions are honest questions to a person (you) whom I believe is sincere in your defense of Catholicism. I mean no disrespect in my questions.

 

[Stevereeno]

Ghosty:

Fr. Brian Harrison is not a part of the Magisterium; he is a priest and a professor. The Magisterium is the Pope, the Council of Bishops in union with the Pope, and organs assigned to specific jurisdictions, such as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith headed by Cardinal Ratzinger. Fr. Brian Harrison is a theologian, and not even a bishop. His translations and interpretations are not even remotely binding, espescially when they contridict the Pope and Council of Bishops; his work is not authoritative, and it’s certainly not even close to infallible.

Have you ever read the document? Have his writings contradicted the magesterium? Wouldn’t his superiors censor his writings if they were contradictory to the Faith? Is he, too, a schismatic and a “young earther”? Maybe it is you who should check your beliefs against the teaching of the Magesterium. Anytime someone argues for special creation, there you are beating your drums. The “Magesterial document” on this website states that we may believe in special creation as follows:

“While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.”

When Rome has not defined it’s stance on such issues, then we are allowed to debate them without fear of schism. Fr. Harrison and I are allowed to privately interpret Pope Leo XIII; what else has Rome given us?

Ghosty:

Strawman. Nobody has made such a claim. The point I and others have been trying to make is that the Church hasn’t declared Young Earth ideas nor certain theories of evolution as binding on Catholics. We are free to believe according to our own concience and reason within the bounds that the Church has laid out (i.e. all descend from Adam and Eve, Adam and Eve were real people, Original Sin is present in all humanity, ect.)

It is you who has built the strawman. I have not argued for a young earth, just special creation. Beyond curiosity, I don’t care how God created the universe or the other animals. I am very interested with how God created man. Get it through your head, already.

 

[Fox]

So where does Original Sin come in? What was the sin humanity did? I believe the fruit was a symbol of something humans did against God but, what was it?

So what I’ve gathered so far in this thread:

Adam and Eve were the first “soulfied” humans that mixed with “non-souled” human like animals thus populating the world. Adam and Eve were the first true humans because they had the soul. Their progeny received souls from God all the way till now.

 

[Shiann]

This is off topic, but here is a general answer to your question. If you wish to discuss it further, try a new thread.

Fox:

So where does Original Sin come in?

Original sin is the first sin against God that caused a chasm in the relationship between God and man.

What was the sin humanity did?

Yup

I believe the fruit was a symbol of something humans did against God but, what was it?

Our original parents decided that they knew better than God. They believed that they could make decisions for themselves- disregarding the Will of God. This thought process, by it’s very nature, seperated the will of man from the Will of God. Jesus returned to bridge the gap and make the will of mankind the same as the Will of God. Without this perfect merge, no eternal relationship with God was possible.

So what I’ve gathered so far in this thread:

Adam and Eve were the first “soulfied” humans that mixed with “non-souled” human like animals thus populating the world. Adam and Eve were the first true humans because they had the soul. Their progeny received souls from God all the way till now.

That is only one of many options that have been bandied about on this thread. Some believe Adam and Eve ARE the only original people from whom we descend.

 

[Stevereeno]

Ghosty:

My challenge to you, hecd2, is to demonstrate that the Church teaches that mixing between true humans and human-shaped animals (biological humans with an animal soul) is an impossibility. Until then you’ve not caught the Church in any kind of contridiction with science.

Ghosty, at some point you are going to get your thinking in line with the Magesterium. Are you suggesting that Adam and Eve ran around breeding a bunch of animals? Really, beastiality and adultery? Close your eyes now, here comes the Papal quote:

Pope Leo XII discusses the “true origin” of marriage:
“In bringing this about, God, in His supreme Providence, willed that this spousal couple should be the natural origin of all men: in other words, that from this pair the human race should be propagated and preserved in every age by a succession of procreative acts which would never be interrupted. And so that this union of man and woman might correspond more aptly to the most wise counsels of God, it has manifested from that time onward, deeply impressed or engraved, as it were, within itself, two preeminent and most noble properties: unity and perpetuity.”

 

[Neithan]

Originally posted by Chris W:
The Church is pretty clear on the teaching about the relationship between a man and a woman, and it always involves an intimate love, a relfection of the love between persons of the Triune God, or God and the Church. Is it reasonable to think that the first humans became one flesh in a loving relationship with soulless hominoid animal brutes? Or is it reasonable to think that God *now * expects this type of relationship between a man and a woman, but did *not * have this expectation in the beginning, and in fact by design intended for loveless procreation?

Keep in mind the Church has only been around for about 2000 years. Judaism has only been around for about 5000 years (?) and the laws for marriage in the old covenant are much different than in the new. Men lawfully had many wives.

Previous to the Law of Moses there were no set moral rules for procreation, and God’s only command was for humanity to “Be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28). So you cannot transpose Christ’s marriage laws onto the first human beings.

Look carefully at Genesis 4:14-24. Cain is banished to Nod, East of Eden, and it is obvious that people live there, since God even puts a curse on whoever would kill Cain. Who were these people? Who was the wife of Cain in 4:17? His sister? That would be pretty unethical in itself. She must have been either a hominid brute (not a daughter of Adam and Eve) or another human being to whom God had given a soul.

You told me, in answer to my questions, that it is impossible for mankind to have descended biologically and exclusively from a single original pair, because of the genetic evidence. Yet you also believe in the virgin birth which would definatley contradict genetics. Can you comment on why the same rules do not apply in the origin of Jesus and the origin of the human race?

Not necessarily. The Church teaches that Jesus received all his physical characteristics from Mary. Therefore, Jesus’ genetics should be entirely from Mary, and none from Joseph. The Virgin Birth is a miracle in the sense that Mary conceived, and gave birth without violating her virginity. Since Revelation can never contradict Reason (truth cannot contradict truth), neither of these miracles, if studied scientifically, could be disproved or in any natural way explained.

The fact that we are not descended from one genetic pair is currently a scientific probability. One of the only explanations for this is that the first true humans procreated with human-like animals. A miracle would not be disprovable by molecular science, it would be unexplainable. IF it can be definitively proven that we are not all from one single original genetic pair by science, we can’t say that a miracle has taken place, which would make it seem as though there were a natural explication. This destroys our reasoning. As much as you dislike the argument that God cannot deceive us, it is a valid one.

 

[SCTA-1]

This is a very interesting topic that has been dealt with over and over on this forum.I doubt if any answer will be available in this life anyway.I wonder how we are to understand a perfect creation by God when there was millions of years of chaos and death in the world before any Adam and Eve.When was Paradise created? I always thought Paradise was immediate with creation but millions of years went by with all chaos in the world when it was supposed to be Perfect.Oh well, commence firing.

 

[Neithan]

Originally posted by SCTA-1:
This is a very interesting topic that has been dealt with over and over on this forum.I doubt if any answer will be available in this life anyway.I wonder how we are to understand a perfect creation by God when there was millions of years of chaos and death in the world before any Adam and Eve.When was Paradise created? I always thought Paradise was immediate with creation but millions of years went by with all chaos in the world when it was supposed to be Perfect.Oh well, commence firing.

There never was Paradise over the whole Earth, death existed before Adam and Eve. The Garden of Eden was special, and through some means (Tree of Life) God nourished these first two humans and kept their bodies from degenerating. If there were no such thing as death, then how could they understand God’s threat that they would die if they ate of the Tree of Knowledge? (Genesis 3:3) If death was “invented” with sin, then this would have been nonsensical. On a side note, Mary, who was conceived without sin, was born much like Eve (without Original Sin), but was assumed into heaven at her death. How would she have died if death were caused by sin? The body naturally decays, and without the immortal nourishment (Tree of Life) Mary grew old and died naturally, after a sinless life.

The Garden of Eden was the Paradise on Earth where God wished for his favourite creatures to dwell. After they sinned, they were cast out, and dwelled in the outside world, where death and chaos most likely already existed as a natural force of change. It takes on a tragic character only when it is applied to human beings, as it was not intended for us. We were supposed to be exempt from death.

 

[buffalo]

Neithan:

Look carefully at Genesis 4:14-24. Cain is banished to Nod, East of Eden, and it is obvious that people live there, since God even puts a curse on whoever would kill Cain. Who were these people? Who was the wife of Cain in 4:17? His sister? That would be pretty unethical in itself.

God allowed the incest as it was physically necessary at the beginning. This would only be unethical by today’s as well as our standards.