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.
The fact that he invented something useful does not make him more reliable.
Predictable response. Once again, ignore the info because it does not fit with your a priori views. So you will only review information that confirms your bias.

God can have created Adam and Eve any way He wished/ Or do you believe He was constrained?
 
Predictable response. Once again, ignore the info because it does not fit with your a priori views. So you will only review information that confirms your bias.
It might appear that way to you because I am being a critical thinker. I love how you cherry pick my words and ignore the real meat in my responses. That is probably because I am not willing to affirm your biases.
God can have created Adam and Eve any way He wished/ Or do you believe He was constrained?
The alternative to God’s creative power before creation is not that he was constrained. I am just interested in what actually happened; not what could have happened. God could have made me a dolphin; now that I am not a dolphin, God’s plan for me is constrained by the fact that I am a human ape primate. What could have been no longer matters except in a fantasy land.
 
Evolution science, not experimental and the weakest of the historiographical sciences having only non-testamentary evidence, chaps other scientists when its induced and contrived possible conclusions are elevated to facts as does the OP in this thread: “… genetic data showing that there never were just two parents.” Outrageous, not only claiming to prove a negative but to do so in an historiographical science!
 
Sooooo - the foundation can be built on sand?
It’s better than no foundation at all – that would be chaos!
Current measurements and observations do not guarantee the same was true in the past.
No, but they provide a baseline. Unless there’s evidence that it was not the same in the past, we go with the operating logic that there was continuity.
If you want to challenge those measurements, observations and estimates then you have to come up with some better measurements, observations and estimates to replace the existing ones.
👍 This!
 
Evolution science, not experimental and the weakest of the historiographical sciences having only non-testamentary evidence, chaps other scientists when its induced and contrived possible conclusions are elevated to facts as does the OP in this thread: “… genetic data showing that there never were just two parents.” Outrageous, not only claiming to prove a negative but to do so in an historiographical science!
Do not ever become a rhetorician. 😜 I wrote the headline for this OP, so let me explain it for you. Those were my words carefully chosen to start an interesting discussion. I was taking a literal read of paragraph 37 of HG to frame and bait the hook.

What the scientific studies do is give an estimate of the minimum number of human persons in the successful breeding population that lead to us. That minimum number was maybe as low as 1,000 or as high as 12,000. Neither of those numbers is 2. No scientific study is claiming the negative. That was just a framing device that I used. Big difference.

Regarding kinds of evidence: circumstantial/(your non-testamentary evidence) (DNA or foot prints, for example) is always more reliable than eye-witness evidence. Witness can be mistaken; witnesses can lie.
 
These are human definitions.
And we are human, so we use human definitions.

It is also the scientific biological definition of the species Homo sapiens. If Adam and Eve’s genes were as Dr. Sanford proposed, then they were outside the biological definition of Homo sapiens. AIUI that would not be allowed by Humani Generis which has Adam and Eve as “true humans”. Dr. Sanford is wrong, both scientifically and theologically.
 
God can have created Adam and Eve any way He wished/ Or do you believe He was constrained?
The question is, can Humani Generis be reconciled with human genetic data?

I am not exactly sure what your position is?

First, do you think Humani Generis can be reconciled with your understanding of Genesis? i think you do, just clarifying.

Second, do you think Genesis can be reconciled with human genetic data? This confuses me. Yes? A scenario can be imagined where human genetic data can be reconciled with your understanding of Genesis. This entails adopting unspecified assumptions about genetic data just like other answers. Or No? Genetic data cannot be understood in conformity with Genesis?

Or do you just take your understanding of Genesis as an absolute to which any other information has to conform?

So I think your position is yes, HG can be reconciled with genetic data. But I am not sure.
 
So I think your position is yes, HG can be reconciled with genetic data. But I am not sure.
Correct, and the science as I have demonstrated show it to be more aligned with what we curretnly observe than the evo data does.

To answer the OP, Adam and Eve are not scientifically ruled out as had been claimed since Ayala.
 
@Dovekin

Further, God is not constrained and could easily have created Adam and Eve with the built in diversity needed to survive and adapt.

The question is/was - did He.

We can now see science can no longer rule it out from a scientific point of view. Remember, science cannot say anything about the supernatural, so special creation of Adam and Eve was never a philosophical issue.
 
Last edited:
For those that place complete trust in peer review and the scientific establishment.
No one in this thread has expressed that they place “complete trust” in the peer review system. Being peer reviewed just gives a level of credibility that is higher than being not peer reviewed.

On a personal note, I give greater weight to scientists who acknowledge issues as they arise like contamination. Some of the early ancient DNA results had that issue, and the causes were subsequently addressed.

I think you have just shown who dismisses out of hand here, and it is not me. I may express reservations, but I take every view seriously that I have not heard before if it is presented in a logical manner.
 
Thanks for your responses. I think I understand your position better, though it still seems problematic to me for some obvious reasons.
We can now see science can no longer rule it out from a scientific point of view. Remember, science cannot say anything about the supernatural, so special creation of Adam and Eve was never a philosophical issue.
This baffles me. Are you suggesting the creation of Adam and Eve was supernatural=unnatural? Isn’t that the opposite of saying HG can be reconciled with genetic data? Are you saying we can look at genetic data and identify a specific time when humans did not exist? When humans suddenly appeared in a specific place? I can conceive how that might be possible, but I cannot think of any data that suggests such a specific change.

Your positions seem too radical. They dismiss assumptions, but dismiss yours as well as others. They dismiss peer review, which leaves your positions unreviewed and unsupported. You leave yourself with no support for your positions. If we find your arguments unconvincing, should we just ignore them?
 
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.
What do you know about Evolution? What are the mechanics?

What do you know about Mutation? Natural Selection?
 
Your response is odd given what you quoted from my last post in response to you. There is no logical connection between asking you to name who you think has misled the flock and what I know about evolution. That said, so we can move on beyond the basics of science you claim to already know, I will give very basic answers.
What do you know about Evolution?
Plenty. I have a BA in Anthropology and I focused on genetics in most of my physical anthropology classes. I am not a geneticist, but my background included that because I am fascinated by genetics.
What are the mechanics?

What do you know about Mutation? Natural Selection?
Well, questions 2 and 3 here are the answers to question 1 if we are doing basic high school biology. Evolution is change over time. In the case of living matter (plants and animals) evolution is change in allele frequency over time through natural selection as driven by the ecological niche to be filled. Mutations are usually neutral, but sometimes they provided an advantage, even if they are otherwise detrimental (sickle cell carriers are malaria resistant).

For example, human brain size is driven by the fact that the beginning of our genus, our ancestors (probably homo habilis) began preparing food in new ways - primarily through cooking, which releases calories. Human bodies are evolved to eat starch, which is the preferred fuel for the brian. Cooking starch and pounding meat before eating it (raw or cooked) reduced time needed to chew and digest, which lead to a few key changes. First, the brain had more fuel and so could grow. Second, our guts became shorter in comparison to our body size than is found in other apes. This freed up more calories that could be used for brian function and size. Finally, it also meant that we did not have to spend the whole day eating to get sufficient calories. The last few million years of our evolutionary history would have also been marked by increasing leisure time (opportunity to develop culture). We are the cooking ape. By learning to control and create fire, our ancestors created an ecological niche that has been filled by us.

Some mutations that also occured in the evolution of humanity and became common as advantageous due to the nature of our diet include increased amylaze production (starch digestion in the mouth) and not turning off the gene for lactose digestion after childhood (lactose tolerance). Different human populations that developed dairy production have lactose tolerance, and the mutations for this occur in different locations on the genome because these populations developed the adaptation independently.

For more about cooking making us human, see Catching Fire. The book is a quick easy read. I highly recommend it.
 
Last edited:
Now, just to bring this thread back to my OP. My question is not, “is evolution true?” My question is about, “how do you avoid the heterodox opinions that were of concern to Pius, given what we know about natural history?” Pius was not a scientist, and it showed. However, he did say that Catholics could study evolution. Practically speaking, it would not do well for the Church to appear to be anti-science.
 
What do you know about Mutation? Natural Selection?
Let’s go deeper…

Mutations are RNA Transcription mistakes. Some are null… Some are negative… and only a very few - such as Sickle Cell - offered some protection against a Malarial Parasite - yet at a cost… Humans remain human… Parasites remain parasite…

Natural Selection results in a loss of Bio-Info…
 
Let’s go deeper…

Mutations are RNA Transcription mistakes. Some are null… Some are negative… and only a very few - such as Sickle Cell - offered some protection against a Malarial Parasite - yet at a cost… Humans remain human… Parasites remain parasite…

Natural Selection results in a loss of Bio-Info
This is all over the place, and not exactly accurate as a result. But, let’s grant it for the moment.

So what?

That has nothing to do with my OP question.
 
That has nothing to do with my OP question.
Sure it does… Just b/c someone claims ‘science’ declares this of that - that doesn’t auto-make it TRUE

Natural Selection alone - debunks Darwinism…
 
Sure it does… Just b/c someone claims ‘science’ declares this of that - that doesn’t auto-make it TRUE

Natural Selection alone - debunks Darwinism…
Say what? Darwin came up with Natural Selection, and he has been shown to be right.

Just because you say that you don’t think something is true does not mean that I have to accept something as not true. Plus, as I already stated, the question is Not whether evolution is true. So, you still have not actually addressed the focus of my opening question.

So far neither you or @buffalo have provided a good reason to abandon the premises on which the question is based. You appear to be of a similar mindset, so let’s jump to focusing on my main question.

Thanks!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top