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

[rossum]

Yes - two humans can produce the genetic diversity we see. In fact, Sanford states it is God’s gift to humanity. https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1079&context=icc_proceedings

As I have already pointed out, Dr. Sanford requires Adam and Eve to be “massively heterozygous”. That would mean that they were not human, as they would not have had human DNA. Humans are diploid, with a maximum of only two alleles at any given locus.

Dr. Sanford appears to deny that Adam and Eve were human since he is saying that they did not have human DNA.

I do not think that the Church would agree with this approach to the biology of Adam and Eve.

 

[Allyson]

Well, don’t be defensive. He’s not saying you don’t know the story of the creation of the world. And, no offense, but one class does not an expert make. I’ve taken a couple of anthropology classes, and I definitely could not speak with expertise.

I see nothing bad with his response. What did you expect? A convoluted response that does nothing but cause more confusion? Remember Occam’s razor. In many cases, the answer is found in simple explanations.

I will grant that I was being gratuitous as to why the response was predictable. Not so much defensive. I had just hoped for a deeper more reflective answer. My question was designed to ask for a deeper reflection than just the easy “because Original Sin” responses. I would say that it makes things more convoluted, unless you believe in a short earth paradigm, in which case, it would be hard to have a rational discussion, because the premises are radically different. Further, Original Sin is a proposition of theological history, so using it as an explanation for the workings of nature is violating: “Entities should not be multiplied without necessity.”

Gen 1-11 was one of the classes I took for my MA in Theology (and I have a BA in Anthropology). I would not consider myself an “expert,” because I do not work in either field, but I am knowledgeable.

And I’d hardly call a prehuman world, inhabited by bacteria, as death and struggle. If you want to put a religious spin on it, then I’d say that’s the primordial chaos Genesis, and all other creation myths, speak of.

Natural history did not go bacteria for millions of years and the - Boom humans. There were millennia of animals and plants evolving and dying.

 

[Allyson]

Dawkins does have something to offer, and he did refer to natural selection as the blind watchmaker. I don’t think it is blind, however. It is leading toward something greater, but maybe we’re too blind–and our intellects too small–to understand it.

And I don’t think it’s easier to explain away complexity by saying it’s “blind experimentation by a non-rational agent.” That’s a bit reductionist. Some organisms, like humans, are too complex to have been the product of “blind” chance. It’s organized complexity, and that’s the key – it makes sense. It is not entirely purposeless, as some would have it.

I used to be drawn in by the claims that there was design (in a direct sense), but that is not consistent with what we know of natural history. Blind experimentation by a non-rational agent makes sense in the context of nature because it did take vast amounts of time to reach the complexity we know today. When humans design things, we figure it out much faster with simpler more efficient paths to success than nature does.

 

[Allyson]

From my earlier post:

“another unexpected finding from the study—species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there’s nothing much in between."

“If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies,” said Thaler. “They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space.”

The absence of “in-between” species is something that also perplexed Darwin, he said."

I suspect the issue here is that, as popular science often does, the author is creating drama where drama does not exist. It is NOT the case now, as it was in Darwin’s time, that we have an absence of examples of transitional species. The first one - archaeopteryx - was found before he died. We have many many more now. It makes sense that there are genetic boundaries between species in the present, because we all diverged from common ancestors in the millions of years ago. We did not all diverge from each other 100,000-200,000 years ago. That is just when the survivors of the then existing species proved to be the fittest. It does not mean what you seem to think it means.

See: Did 90% of Animal Species Appear about the Same Time as Human Beings? - Articles - BioLogos

Their conclusions are interesting (and to some extent unexpected) but they are not shocking, nor do they defy evolutionary theory. To see why, let’s unpack what the authors have claimed. First, it is important to note that the authors never claim that most “species” came into existence within the past 200,000 years. Rather, what has come into existence within that time frame is the genetic variation observed in one gene in the mitochondrial genome. By tracing the mutations in that one gene, we can trace the origin of the gene back to the last common female ancestor of all living members of a certain species (the so-called “mitochondrial Eve”). But this discovery, at best, tells us the minimum age of the species. It tells us little to nothing about the maximum age of a species.

Thank you for looking at the beginning of the video series. I do hope that you get to finish it.

I would be curious to whether you have any thoughts on my question: How do you account for 3.5 Billion years of death and struggle before man came along? The evolutionary process is the same today as it has been for 3.5 billion years and several mass extinction events due to super-volcanoes and climate change. Is Original Sin somehow retroactive.

 

[buffalo]

Is Original Sin somehow retroactive.

Interesting question, since God is outside of time.

 

[buffalo]

but that is not consistent with what we know of natural history.

Right, we need to really examine the foundational assumptions of natural history.

What do you think is more accurate - natural history or genetic history?

 

[Allyson]

Okay, so to continue from where I left off last night. When I first was introduced to ID in 2003, I was interested because I liked the idea of bridging theology and science. As I noted, it was being sold at the time as not creationism. Even at the time, in discussions with a friend who was knowledgeable, he was very skeptical. (He was then and still is a practicing Catholic - just in case this matters to you.) In short, his response was “this is not how it works.” Eventually, I did conclude that ID does not hold up the scrutiny. It was not until many years later, when I actually dove into the Dover case that I realized that ID was just creationism dressed up. It was not important to me at the time to read that case. I was engaged in other pursuits.

What I have seen, as we improve our ability to compare genomes, is that the data is consistent with the modern synthesis. Does that me that I think that it provides perfect certainty at this time? No, but the likelihood that there will be a revolution akin to that of Newton for physics goes down the more data we have that is consistent with the current theory. I also do not need to have certainty to understand its explanatory value.

The problem with creationism is that it is built on false premises that are pseudo-scientific. Instead of looking at the natural world and evaluating it as a whole. Just the facts that fit the preformed world-view are cherry-picked. For example, the person who put together the series I referred you too is also an advocate for science learning in Texas. One of the people he interacted said that, although this person knew that there transitional species, it was important that children (in public schools) not be taught about those fossils because it was important that they believe that there were no transitional species. (Thankfully that person was not Catholic.) We all can be better than that. We do not have to shore up our faith on a bed of pious lies.

I am fine with a theistic evolutionary model where God set the process in place (perhaps with a view of where it was to go), but to say more than that is a science stopper. As soon as you make claims that are not consistent with the evidence, you are forced into a corner with a rug coming out from under you. It is better to not dig in too deeply, which is what creationist have done.

Interesting question, since God is outside of time.

I am not asking questions about God. I am asking about events that happened in time. Way to dodge the question.

What do you think is more accurate - natural history or genetic history?

How are these different things? Is not one a subset of the other?

Right, we need to really examine the foundational assumptions of natural history.

Which assumptions do you want to examine?

 

[buffalo]

How are these different things? Is not one a subset of the other?

If they are opposed we have to figure out which one is correct. Which one do you think will yield more accurate results?

 

[Dovekin]

Adam and Eve could have been created massively heterozygous.

“This one, at last, is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
This one shall be called ‘woman,’
for out of man this one has been taken.”
Genesis 2: 23

I have not worked through the math yet, some of which seems dubious to me. But before I do, I have to ask if Sanders’ theory is compatible with Genesis. In particular, Is “bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh” compatible with “massively heterozygous”?

 

[EndTimes]

Yes. Very few people read the entire thing.

1. Now Catholic theologians and philosophers, whose grave duty it is to defend natural and supernatural truth and instill it in the hearts of men, cannot afford to ignore or neglect these more or less erroneous opinions.

Of Course…

And it expands upon the Warnings
of those who attempt to cast Doubt upon these truisms as found in Sacred Scriptures

We run into them often… even from some who ID themselves as Catholic theologians

Try as some humans might - they can never undermine For Instance - Original Sin –
of which Satan - father of Lies - nudges them to do…

From Catholic Magisterium

Original sin - an essential truth of the faith

[388 With the progress of Revelation, the reality of sin is also illuminated. Although to some extent the People of God in the Old Testament had tried to understand the pathos of the human condition in the light of the history of the fall narrated in Genesis, they could not grasp this story’s ultimate meaning, which is revealed only in the light of the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.261 We must know Christ as the source of grace in order to know Adam as the source of sin. The Spirit-Paraclete, sent by the risen Christ, came to “convict the world concerning sin”,262 by revealing him who is its Redeemer.

[389] The doctrine of original sin is, so to speak, the “reverse side” of the Good News that Jesus is the Savior of all men, that all need salvation and that salvation is offered to all through Christ. The Church, which has the mind of Christ,263 knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.

FROM Sacred Scriptures

1. Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—
2. To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.
3. But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!
4. Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!

 

[buffalo]

The problem with creationism is that it is built on false premises that are pseudo-scientific. Instead of looking at the natural world and evaluating it as a whole.

I really think you are not aware of the new information since Dover.

I am sure you know the difference between ID the science and ID the philosophy.

 

[Allyson]

I really think you are not aware of the new information since Dover.

I am sure you know the difference between ID the science and ID the philosophy.

The information I am aware of since Dover goes against ID. How would the information (that you have in mind) now affect the fact that what happened in Dover was an attempt to end round Edwards v. Aguillard?

And yes, I am aware of the distinction. Why does that distinction matter here?

 

[buffalo]

The information I am aware of since Dover goes against ID.

I really need to see your top one or two.

 

[EndTimes]

I am sure you know the difference between ID the science and ID the philosophy

I’m not so sure… .

 

[EndTimes]

I never said it did. Never even implied it. You’re not the only knowledgeable one here. I have a feeling you just want to brag about how knowledgeable you actually are. I get the sense it’s almost as if you’re baiting…

Could be…
Whenever any employ the phrase “creationist”

• that’s a clear sign that they lack in actual Bio-Science acumen

Some of them are members of the religions of Darwinism and/or Scientism
who engage 24/7 in attempting to disprove what they can never do…

Which is what also occurs with Adrenaline Junkies

_

 

[EndTimes]

No offense to her, but she studied anthropology and anthropology is not the noble endeavor it used to be. She was probably brainwashed. How do I know? In one of her comments, she actually deployed the term “ethnocentric.” That says it all. Ethnocentrism is what white people say when they feel bad about the fact that first-world countries are better than many of the backward indigenous tribes anthropologists studies. That is not to say that indigenous tribes are not rich in tradition or history, but their living standards is backwards compared to ours.

That latest from Satan is RACISM to the hilt… AntiChristian of course.

_

_

 

[buffalo]

Since this thread is about Adam and Eve watch these results from genetic studies.

Dr. Robert Carter - Meet Your Ancestors: Adam & Eve

 

[Allyson]

You’re posting a question in a religious forum already anticipating what kind of responses you’ll get. You’ve gotten some decent comments, but you’re clearly not satisfied. So, why not post this in another forum. Say, a more evolutionary history-focused forum.

Yes, I did get some descent comments and some great resources that provided insight to my OP question. I actually was satisfied with that result. I still need to take sometime to synthesize and see if I think there is a good solution, but I have some new resources now. The thread pretty much died at a certain point, but then other people chimed in, which is fine, but they are the ones making the issue about whether evolution is true. My question presupposed evolution as true. This was not intended to be a thread about evolution whatsoever, and I have tried, unsuccessfully, to get it back one track a couple times in the last few days. Because I set up the discussion, I do feel obligated to continue engaging as long as people are commenting.

It is one of the problems of anonymous forums that you do not know who has what as a background, so I can see why you think that saying, “hey, I have x background.” That might seem like bragging out of context, but the intent is to explain something about the real person behind the moniker. I am in no way assuming that I am the only knowledgeable person.

As long as there is a discussion continuing, I will engage and ask questions meant to provoke a deeper consideration.

No offense to her, but she studied anthropology and anthropology is not the noble endeavor it used to be. She was probably brainwashed. How do I know? In one of her comments, she actually deployed the term “ethnocentric.” That says it all.

Way to go for the ad hominem. I am not brainwashed, but I am so very guilty of being white…although not a liberal. So go figure one that one. lololol

 

[Allyson]

Could be…
Whenever any employ the phrase “creationist”

• that’s a clear sign that they lack in actual Bio-Science acumen

Some of them are members of the religions of Darwinism and/or Scientism
who engage 24/7 in attempting to disprove what they can never do…

Which is what also occurs with Adrenaline Junkies

Also a beautiful ad hominem.

 

[Allyson]

Saved it to watch