Population Bottleneck

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hope1960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
There is no needy to worry!
  1. There are few possible paths, considering the science in view, as well as what is Catholic teaching.
First off, even traditional Catholic teaching on monogenism does not rule out a large population of humans, if you consider humans merely on the biological level (as science would, anyway). But theologically, a human being is not merely physical: We have a trans-physical aspect as well: The “soul.”

So God could have very well chosen two individuals from this larger pool of “humans” and uplifted them to spiritually-endowed creatures.

Some issues would be: Did this two humans and their descendants inter-marry/reproduce with these other spiritual-soul-less humanoids? Possibly. We know at one time, humans interbred with Neanderthals (assuming they didn’t have spiritual souls).
  1. There is a possibility that theology will evolve to admit of polygenism even of true humans — humans with spiritual souls. For in the past, and now, monogenism is defeneded not so much because of Genesis — but because of retaining the beliefs in Original Sin and the need for the atonement. But there are ways Original Sin/the Fall of man can be retained even in a population of more than two. After all, if Original Sin is due to TWO people – a couple – then why not a whole population?
 
Do you have any recent sources from respected scientists that say there was ever a human population bottleneck of fewer than 10,000 people, twice? (Adam and Eve, plus after the Flood).
 
Last edited:
When speaking of polygenism, the Church refers to “true men”.
What are “true men”?
A unity of body and soul.
You could theoretically have 15 people of the same species, and only one human, if only one of them has a soul.
 
I agree…Would that reasoning also work for a faith that believes the Bible is history and that events occurred as they’re told in the Bible?
 
Last edited:
Ok, so you can see there no problem having a family tree with hominids that might be human in all other respects, and breeding with one another, but if God infuses a soul into one or two of them, we still have two first parents, truly human, body and soul.
 
No, I don’t have a problem with that, from a Catholic viewpoint. My problem is (and maybe I won’t get any help on a Catholic forum) that I’ve been considering a ND church whose beliefs are that Genesis is historical.
 
Last edited:
Hope1960 said:
Do you have any recent sources from respected scientists that say there was ever a human population bottleneck of fewer than 10,000 people, twice? (Adam and Eve, plus after the Flood).
Click to expand...
The problem is that the 10,000 estimate is based on assumed starting diversity, the mutation rate and clock.

If Adam and Eve had more initial diversity it does away with the 10,000. In addition, we now know MtDNA can be passed by the father further confusing this estimate.
 
So do you have a list of at least a handful of respected scientists whose beliefs likely line up with the historicity of Genesis?
 
Last edited:
Scientists that aren’t fringe oddballs and are respected in the scientific community?
 
Hope1960 said:
No, I don’t have a problem with that, from a Catholic viewpoint. My problem is (and maybe I won’t get any help on a Catholic forum) that I’ve been considering a ND church whose beliefs are that Genesis is historical.
Click to expand...
Ok well not sure what you are really looking for.
Why would you go to a church that proposes something you don’t believe?
Are you trying to change their minds about this and need ammo?

Ask them to show you the hammered metal dome in the sky. It’s in Genesis, gottta be there somewhere.
Maybe this church is not for you?
 
Hope1960 said:
Scientists that aren’t fringe oddballs and are respected in the scientific community?
Click to expand...
Any scientist who is producing papers that challenge evolution are not “respected” and will lose their funding and even get fired as has happened recently. This is a big issue happening now in science. They must conform.

Look at the papers and you will usually see the expected hat tip to evolution, even though the paper is showing data that challenges it. They have to be clever writers to get past the peer community. Pay close attention and one can spot the issues and see where the trend is.
 
I don’t think they’d believe the hammered dome is real. I really like the services, and am not looking to change their minds.
 
rossum said:
There is a choice between incest or bestiality or a mixture of both. Back then bestiality would have resulted in viable offspring with human DNA, unlike modern bestiality. That is a significant difference between then and now. Incest carries dangers of inbreeding, which outbreeding with biologically compatible almost-humans does not. Outbreeding also explains the failure to find any evidence of a recent genetic bottleneck in the human line. The 500,000 year plus time range for a bottleneck of two people indicates that it happened before the first Homo sapiens evolved, something like 250,000 years ago.
Click to expand...
Well, that’s true. I suppose incest would not be a crime back then, and God would have made an allowance for that. So, the diseases and problems observed today with incestuous relationships might not have been that bad. But this is all speculation and cannot be proved. Of course, I cannot prove that bestiality never happened either. As a consequence of Adam’s sin, we had less control of our passions after the Fall. So, it is easy to imagine a male human having a desire for, and taking advantage of, a very attractive non-human. Hahaha.

It is possible that the true humans (that means, homo sapiens that are descendants of Adam and Eve) co-existed with non-human anatomically modern homo sapiens. So, even if inbreeding was dominant among humans, you still might not find any evidence of a recent genetic bottleneck in the human line. Outbreeding need not be the only explanation for the absence of a bottleneck.

When do you think did the first humans appear? My opinion is 40,000 years ago, at the time of the Cro-Magnon man. I say this because I am not convinced that the other early homo sapiens (including the Neanderthals) showed evidence of human intelligence higher than those that are found in brute animals.
 
buffalo said:
Any scientist who is producing papers that challenge evolution are not “respected” and will lose their funding and even get fired as has happened recently. This is a big issue happening now in science. They must conform.

Look at the papers and you will usually see the expected hat tip to evolution, even though the paper is showing data that challenges it. They have to be clever writers to get past the peer community. Pay close attention and one can spot the issues and see where the trend is.
Click to expand...
So the only ones who believe this are considered to be oddball fringe types? That certainly doesn’t help.
 
rom said:
suppose incest would not be a crime back then, and God would have made an allowance for that
Click to expand...
Yes. Adam and Eve newly created would have pristine genetics and their immediate descendants would be minimally affected by deleterious mutations.
 
Hope1960 said:
So the only ones who believe this are considered to be oddball fringe types? That certainly doesn’t help.
Click to expand...
Most are ostracized by their peers, not because of their science, but because they dared to go against the paradigm. That is slowly changing as the new findings have to be dealt with.

An example I have used often is that of J Harlen Bretz. He was cast out by the geologists for decades, He was recently vindicated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top