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

[Allyson]

Artificial design? vs ???

Natural Phenomena

However, the SOS could have come about by natural means, no?

No. Not this SOS. While human are pattern seekers and we see shapes in nature, like rocks or clouds. When we look closely, we can tell the difference between natural phenomena and human manufactured design (Compare the Old Man on the Mountain v. Mount Rushmore). I would not even say it was an infinitesimal chance. (Blame my time on a dig in college looking for artifacts.)

 

[Freddy]

Allyson:

Of course, context clues matter.

Indeed they do. Context and prior experience will help one sort the odds that this was the intent. But it is not 100%. Finding the person who wrote the SOS in the sand would help clarify and lead you to more certainty. However, the SOS could have come about by natural means, no? Or are we in agreement the odds are infinitesimally small.

Artificial design? vs ???

You’re being discussed as ‘easy prey’, Buff. What the hey?

But you are still missing the point. After all this time you still don’t understand how evolution works. And it’s not from a lack of attempts to explain it by very many people over a very long time period.

Your sos in the sand can be accepted as being designed because we know of no natural processes that would produce it. The fact that it looks designed has no bearing on the matter whatsoever.

There’s an apochryphal story about Japanese crab fishermen which will help you understand. It runs thus: One of the fishermen caught a crab which had a carapace vaguely resembling a samurai warrior. A few jokes were made about the samurai spirit bringing the boat bad luck so he tossed it back overboard. Lots of laughter. And the habit stuck. To bring them luck they threw back one crab that looked most like a samurai.

And the story got around that their catch was improving so all the boats started doing it. So what exactly were they doing? They were selectively breeding crabs to have a shell formed in a particular way. And after a certain amount of time went by, most of the crabs started to look like samurai. It was natural selection if you like.

So if I showed you a crab that looked exactly like a samurai warrior you’d take the same position: It must be a one off design. It couldn’t happen naturally. Just like the spots on a butterfly’s wings that look like eyes. Or insects that look exactly like twigs. Or spiders that look like gravel. You’d say that all these are designed: 65 Unbelievable Examples of Animal Camouflage That Will Make You Look Twice | Bored Panda

Bet you can’t find #21.

By the way, how old do you think the planet is?

 

[Allyson]

In your opinion, who or what created the world? And would you mind explaining your position on the interface between science and faith? Because I am not about to scroll up and read every single comment. It’s not laziness; I simply do not have a lot of time on my hands

You really, really need to stop assuming bad intent on my part.

First, I do not expect any person who come across this discussion to read every comment. So, if a person says they are still reading through, I am going to give them the chance to read through whatever they want before chiming in again, if they wish to. I am only going to push back if a person is being pushy.

Second, you only would need to read/skim the first 50 comments to see that I was: A. being criticized to presenting HG too narrowly (thus creating the apparent conflict) and B. I was being very gracious and thanking people for their suggestions. By too narrow, I mean that I was presenting Pope Pius’s words in the most literal fashion. That Adam and Eve were the one tow first parents in both the biological and spiritual sense. I did that on purpose to start the discussion and because I think that is what Pius intended. I could be wrong about his intent, but I thought that was the most reasonable starting point.

A couple examples re garding my narrow read in the OP:

There is no science to suggest that there were just one male and female from which all of humanity today was decended.

I have not moved the goalposts. I an reading Humani Generis narrowly

Third, I am a cradle Catholic brought up to believe in a Trinitarian God who created the heavens and the earth, etc. Because of that belief and my desire to have a better grasp of what that meant, I took a great interest in getting an solid Catholic theological education, because church catechesis was not strong at my home parish. I think that the interface between science and faith is a complex and messy one. I am glad that the Catholic Church in our time is pro-science. HG is very much that. The Church was not always so amenable, if we are being honest about history. However, in the present day and age, it is regularly given kudos for not being anti-evolution. That is good. The issue in my OP is very simply, how do you avoid the errors of concern to Pius in HG given that the data we have now very clearly shows that Adam and Eve could not have been the sole biological parents.

 

[Allyson]

Finally, I am sorry if you are offended that I did not respond to every comment you made. I have not responded to every comment made by every person on this thread. Even ones I intended to get back to, like that particular comment. Thank you for the book suggestion. I am pretty sure that is not one I have read, but I am not 100% sure that I do not actually have that book already. It came out during the time period when I was buying books in the subject area. I have Darwin’s Black Box, Icons of Evolution, and Creation Rediscovered. Most of my books are in storage at the moment. The current discussion of ID in this thread did not start until maybe comment 400??? There was a very different discussion before. You do not have to read over the whole thread. just do not judge the discussion by the past 200 comments only. You can always use the summarize function if you want a random sample to get the general gist of what came before.

From your very first comment to me on the thread that I remember, you have been aggressive towards me. That is fine, but at least be charitable in your assessment of my intent and do not pout for offenses not made. You can not see my face or hear my voice. Communicating in text-only has the drawback of seeming more aggressive than the person really is. My public profile should be visible. Feel free to poke around to see my old comment on whatever is on the forum when I was active in the past.

 

[Freddy]

Yet how do we account for the fact that we’re made in God’s likeness?

Genuine question: Could you please explain what you mean by that in the context it was used?

 

[rossum]

Someone revealed the existence of China to you.

So, I have no certainty since people can lie.

It is not only people who can give false information: Jeremiah 20:7 - “O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived.”

If you wait for certainty then you will be waiting a very long time.

 

[EndTimes]

This has nothing to do with my OP or the discussion here.

Sure it does…

Are you the boss of this discussion?

Adam and Eve are the first human parents of Humans…

How much more OP can we get?

 

[Allyson]

This has nothing to do with my OP or the discussion here.

I am the writer of the OP, so I can make a suggestion about what is probably too tangential to the topic as I have conceived it. You comment:

Yes… Those who peddle EuroCentrism as being bad ARE RACISM - Promoters.

They constantly dump upon WHITES!

_

…is pure modern identity politics, which does not fit the OP about Adam and Eve at all.

 

[Allyson]

Yet how do we account for the fact that we’re made in God’s likeness? Of course, I don’t doubt God’s facets are infinite and unique, but I still can’t square the emergence of Homo sapiens with Genesis (if we are to take it at least somewhat literally, but maybe that’s the problem). Again, my only explanation is that we’re missing a huge chunk of the puzzle.

I know you rephrased the question I quoted, but I want to start with it as you have it here first and work backwards. You and I definitely have a lot of common ground in our interest in this topic.

Being made in God’d image and likeness is not at all impeded by the process of evolution. The reason is that being made in the image and likeness found its fulfillment in the Incarnation, which came after Adam and Eve in time. I actually like the Eastern Churches emphasis on the Incarnation as the salvific event over the Western emphasis on the Crucifixion/Resurrection. Christmas is the most important holy day on the liturgical calendar. Basically, the act of taking on our form is how the Son saves humanity. He did not have to die violently in order to be resurrected, but chose to do so anyway. (That is the short short version - obviously, this could be a theological debate in itself and I am leaving out the paradox of the eternity of the Word and Incarnation.) In that context, it would not matter what form our bodies took, or what process got to us. What would matter is that, at some point, God chose to impart his image a likeness in the form of an immortal soul. This image and likeness was damaged by the Fall, and restored subsequently by the Incarnation in which God took on our bodily form in order to restore our spiritual form.

I think that answer applies to how you rephrased the question too, but let me know if it does not answer what you had in mind.

Though your question is interesting, there is something that bothers me even more. I remember reading not so long ago that the Church discredited the idea that we descended from primates.

I would definitely be interested in a source on this. I have been collecting resources on all sides of the issue. HG allows for the possibility that God used prior living matter (i.e. a hominid), and there are Catholic scientist-priests who are on board with evolution. One of them was discussed early on in the thread. I still need to spend sometime going over the website, but I did watch a talk by Fr. Nicanor Austriaco, O.P. Side Note: I just checked the website, and they do have an article that is critical of the ID movement, so I will definitely be reading up on that.

 

[Allyson]

I have not read Genome, so I will add it to my list. When you refer to failure to locate the LCA, are you referring to finding it in the fossil record or through gene studies or something else? I do agree, that science is working with incomplete data. That is the nature of of the discipline. That does not make their conclusions incorrect. The good scientists will express their findings in conditional terms. Sometimes the best answer will be, we don’t know. What we do know now is a lot more than we did 20 years ago when I first started working out my solution for the balance between science and Catholic doctrine. Given the advancements, I am in the position of having to rethink my old solution, which was to say, okay, only two (maybe?) per HG and stick it in the mystery box. It was not a very good solution even at the time. With the new advancement in genetic studies, even in their conditional language, there is enough for me to say that it is time to rethink my solution.

I can also totally relate to having pride. :hugs:

 

[Allyson]

Definitely get rest Being sick is no fun. I hope you feel better soon.

 

[Allyson]

Two decades ago…

I was five.

Haha, yep, I am definitely getting old, but in my mind I am still 25. I was doing a lot of growing and learning then. It was a good era for me.

And I mean through gene studies. Well, I pointed to Ridley’s Genome which sheds light on it, but there are more comprehensive studies, which I have yet to read. Also, if you can, read Red Queen by the same author. The latter is eye-opening.

Added to my thriftbooks.com wish list. (I have a bad book buying habit, and that website is a great resource for me).

What books would you recommend I read on the fossil record?

I just read Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human. It is well-written and a fast read. The book looks at how, by becoming a cooking ape, our ancestors (starting at least as far back as homo habilis) shaped our bodies and our brains as they are today as well as how cooking contributed to the creation of human culture.

I am also planning to read these more recent books:
Lone Survivors - Quote from the description on Amazon: “Stringer draws on analyses of old and new fossils from around the world, DNA studies of Neanderthals (using the full genome map) and other species, and recent archeological digs to unveil his new theory. He shows how the most sensational recent fossil findings fit with his model, and he questions previous concepts (including his own) of modernity and how it evolved.” I still need to buy this book, but I did grab a copy of his textbook so that I have a more up to date general text.

I have bought, but not read yet these two books on specific species:

• Almost Human: The Astonishing Tale of Homo naledi and the Discovery That Changed Our Human Story
• Neanderthals Rediscovered: How Modern Science Is Rewriting Their Story (Revised and Updated Edition)

I find David Montgomery’s anecdote about the Tibetan natives interesting.

I think that was my favorite part of the talk.

 

[Allyson]

The struggle is real. lol. I also like abebooks. Years ago I wanted a book called The Photian schism,: History and legend that was rare and out of print. Copies tend to runs between $75-100. I wanted to pay under $50, so I used their alert feature to know when someone posted it at a bargain price. I got a really nice copy for around $25-30. I did at least read half of the book, so it was worth it. lol.

Library sales…also my downfall.

 

[rossum]

Easiest solution in the world.

Men are fallible. Scripture is not.

Not a great deal of help, since scripture is interpreted by fallible men…

How many different Christian denominations are there? All with their own different fallible interpretation of scripture.

 

[EndTimes]

I am the writer of the OP, so I can make a suggestion about what is probably too tangential to the topic as I have conceived it. You comment:

Probably … Means Maybe not.

The OP’s been answered == Humani Generis Remains Strong.

 

[Allyson]

The OP’s been answered == Humani Generis Remains Strong.

The status of HG was never in question.

 

[EndTimes]

The OP’s been answered == Humani Generis Remains Strong.

The status of HG was never in question.

The OP Question:

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

 

[rossum]

I am able to rest secure in what I know to be true,

And you are a fallible man, like all the rest of us.

 

[Gorgias]

The Thomistic Evolution website is down…

That’s strange. I hope it’s temporary.

Give it time. Its internet connection is evolving.

 

[buffalo]

When we look closely, we can tell the difference between natural phenomena and human manufactured design

How? …