Reconciling Humani Generis with the human genetic data showing that there never were just two first parents

  • Thread starter Thread starter Allyson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dovekin said:
40.png
EndTimes:
The Church deems Scriptures as not only Inspired by God - but as being solid as a Rock…
Click to expand...
When properly interpreted…
Click to expand...
…by the magisterium.
 
Gorgias said:
It’s unfortunate that some scientists thought it would be cute to include “Adam” and “Eve” in the description of the concepts…
Click to expand...
Especially considering the fact that Adam and Eve aren’t even the best examples of the concept in Scripture. That honor goes to Noah and his wife, who are the Scriptural Y-Adam and M-Eve.

Peace and God bless!
 
Allyson said:
It is all a matter of interpretation.
Click to expand...
of course…

And Scriptures and Magisterium make it extremely clear

God’s Holy Spirit is the one and only Interpreter of Scriptures…

Ergo? There’s no wiggle room re: Humani Generis - for reason that there’s no falsity in it…

_
 
EndTimes said:
Ergo? There’s no wiggle room re: Humani Generis - for reason that there’s no falsity in it…
Click to expand...
And yet there has been a lot of wiggle room. I took the most conservative read as a starting point for discussion, but the fact is that all of the creation story in Genesis is understood to be one big allegorical myth.
 
Ghosty1981 said:
That honor goes to Noah and his wife, who are the Scriptural Y-Adam and M-Eve.
Click to expand...
Noah is indeed the scriptural Y-Adam, but Mrs. Noah cannot be M-Eve unless Ham, Seth and Japheth’s wives were all her daughters. To be sure of the scriptural M-Eve we would need to be able to trace the female lines of Noah’s three daughters-in-law.
 
Allyson said:
All of the evidence shows (as common sense would suggest), that at no point have we ever been descended from just two fully human bodies.
Click to expand...
Hello Allyson! First, thank you for bringing this topic. As Catholics, it’s awesome that we can actually have these types of discussions (as opposed to belonging to a cult or sect where we are simply forced to check our brains at the door and ignore science). That being said, ancient DNA is still very much a moving target. I was taught in University to believe that humans were Homo Sapiens Sapiens only, which were the last in a long line of humanoids. From the last 15 years or so, the current thinking is there were in fact several concurrent human “species” which in fact interbred (depending on geography). OK…2 things: Have you ever heard of the “ancient origins” theory? There are sites like Hueyatlaco and Puma Punku which are called “archeological anomalies”, because not only do the human remains predate the accepted narrative that humans in the Americas are only 6,000 years old, but they also suggest human civilization (I.e. the ability to come together and build things) is over 300,000+ years old. So, what if these “species” of homo erectus, neanderthalis etc are in fact ETHNICITIES, as different side by side as a San tribesman next to a 2.5 meter tall blond Dutchman…but still human?

I’m not pushing any singular theorem on the topic here, my point is just that the final jury is still very much out on the origins of man from an archeological an biological standpoint. This decade’s discoveries may very well be negated in the next, so I wouldn’t hold to anything (yet) as definitive. And despite the sources you cited, rest assured there are still MANY biologists who continue to chart “mitochondrial Eve”, dating her to Africa 200,000 years ago. Once again, I’m not pushing this theorem either; just saying it WOULD jibe nicely with Humani Generis if you need it to. But I guess the question is; why do you need it to? We as Catholics understand the story of humanity’s founding relationship with God on an allegorical level from Genesis. You don’t need an “either/or” proposal here to continue perfecting your relationship with God in a fallen world while charting the academic progress of the origins of ancient humans.

Sorry for this long post 😊
 
rossum said:
Noah is indeed the scriptural Y-Adam, but Mrs. Noah cannot be M-Eve unless Ham, Seth and Japheth’s wives were all her daughters. To be sure of the scriptural M-Eve we would need to be able to trace the female lines of Noah’s three daughters-in-law.
Click to expand...
Touche. Forgot about the daughter-in-laws!
 
Trinacria2020 said:
But I guess the question is; why do you need it to? We as Catholics understand the story of humanity’s founding relationship with God on an allegorical level from Genesis. You don’t need an “either/or” proposal here to continue perfecting your relationship with God in a fallen world while charting the academic progress of the origins of ancient humans.

Sorry for this long post 😊
Click to expand...
Thank you for joining in! And, there is nothing wrong with a long post. I am going to start with answering your question from the end, and then jump backwards. I think it does matter that there be a good way to resolve the apparent conflict, because otherwise there is no fall or need for redemption. I agree that it helps to be Catholic because we are not required to be strict literal creationists, but there are some Catholics who are and who do cite HG to that end.
Trinacria2020 said:
I was taught in University to believe that humans were Homo Sapiens Sapiens only, which were the last in a long line of humanoids.
Click to expand...
Now you have me curious. Where did you go to college? When I studied Anthropology at a state school ~20 years ago, the general school of thought with the faculty there was that all Homo Sapiens were humans like use, and that we, as sapiens sapiens, and just the more modern form. This was pre-ancient DNA, so there was still rigorous debate about whether we would have interbred with other hominids like Neanderthals. My physical anthropology prof was in the “no” school on that. There has definitely been a revolution in scientific thought since then. The study of ancient DNA has forced the old school thinkers to shed their prejudices about who is human and who is not.

NOTE: I had to break my reply into multiple posts.
 
Trinacria2020 said:
That being said, ancient DNA is still very much a moving target.
[…]
This decade’s discoveries may very well be negated in the next, so I wouldn’t hold to anything (yet) as definitive. And despite the sources you cited, rest assured there are still MANY biologists who continue to chart “mitochondrial Eve”, dating her to Africa 200,000 years ago.
Click to expand...
I would not call it a moving target so much as I would say that we have only begun to scratch the surface. Scientists are still collecting samples from around the world. As we expand the number of genomes from different populations we will get a more complete picture.

Neither of the two geneticists I link to would dispute the age and location of “Mitochondrial Eve.” Until we find a modern person with an older mtDNA, that is the best date. It is not outside of the realm of possibility, but that number is still good. However, that is only the last common ancestor for that one small bit of DNA. She has no connection to the Biblical Eve except that she was dubbed with the name.
Trinacria2020 said:
So, what if these “species” of homo erectus, neanderthalis etc are in fact ETHNICITIES, as different side by side as a San tribesman next to a 2.5 meter tall blond Dutchman…but still human?
Click to expand...
All modern living humans are more closely related to each other than our ancestors would have been to their evolutionary cousins (like Neanderthals and Denosovians). That said, Homo Sapiens and the other species of homo descended from Homo Erectus are probably better viewed as sub-species because they could successfully interbreed and produce fertile offspring. I like the idea of the Middle Earth analogy that the landscape of humanity until 20,000 years ago or so at the latest was like the variety of peoples in LOTR. Maybe not ethnicities in the modern sense, but closer to that idea that was once thought. After all, speciation is a gradual process if you are just comparing people close in time. A grand child will always resemble their parents grandparents, but when you compare to their 100x ggp, you are more likely to see the differences.
 
Trinacria2020 said:
Have you ever heard of the “ancient origins” theory? There are sites like Hueyatlaco and Puma Punku which are called “archeological anomalies”, because not only do the human remains predate the accepted narrative that humans in the Americas are only 6,000 years old, but they also suggest human civilization (I.e. the ability to come together and build things) is over 300,000+ years old.
Click to expand...
I love Start Gate: SG1 and the related series, but I would say that Hueyatlaco has all the earmarks of a hoax. My understanding of the earliest arrival of humans to the Americas was that people started immigrating along the coastlines coming out of norther Asian ~18,500 years ago, which is pre-Clovis people, but these people would have been their predecessors. (Clovis people being named after their point technology, which they probably developed in the Americas.)

Unfortunately a lot of the technical history of people in the Americans was lost during the colonial period. Almost all the codexes of the Mayans were burned by missionaries ostensibly due to “demonic content,” but maybe the real reason was that it showed that apparently primitive people actually were descended from peoples who flourished of their own accord without being white or separating people from the knowledge of their past made them easier targets. The knowledge to read Incan knots was lost, until recently when someone was able to crack that code. In the nearly 20K years since homo sapiens came to the Americas, there is no reason to think that they would not have had parallel development in technology.
 
EndTimes said:
Sure…

Introduced by False “theologian” Shepherds…
Click to expand...
It would be helpful to the discussion if you named names and brought receipts about which leaders you think get their interpretation right or wrong and why. Otherwise, you are not bringing much new to what has been covered already.
 
I apologize that I have not responded yet, but I plan to as soon as I can. 🙂 There is a lot to go through. Lol.
 
Can you lay out your argument in more detail? Otherwise you just sound like a science denier.
 
Perhaps we should start with what you actually think the science claims.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top