A
Allyson
Guest
I let you bring it up all on your own and let you speak for yourself.
Reconciling Humani Generis with the human genetic data showing that there never were just two first parents
- Status
G
gama232
Guest
Good point. Over the years, I have seen depictions of Neanderthals change from these brutish, hunched over, ape-like creatures to a little more modern human, to a little more, to they walked upright just as we do. How about interbreeding with allegedly earlier and earlier types of humans? Neanderthals interbreeding with so-called modern humans? No. Absolutely not. Then they find out some of us have Neanderthal DNA. How about Denisovians? It’s all unravelling and people act like it’s not unravelling. Why is it unravelling? Neanderthals buried their dead. Made cave paintings. The evidence is piling up that paints a different picture of human origins.
A
Allyson
Guest
Stupid question. I am Catholic means YES.
A
Allyson
Guest
Which shows that science advances and always is willing to revise conclusions in light of new information. The answer to whether we interbred with Neanderthals was not no, it was we do not know. I had a professor who did not think that we had 20 years ago. Turns out her opinion was wrong, but that I do not know answer is always right when you have little to no data.
B
buffalo
Guest
What is the purpose of this thread then? You believed, but were trying to figure out a reconciliation?
A
Allyson
Guest
Also, Neanderthals were initially pictured hunched over because the skeleton used was diseased, but the person doing the study did not know how to identify the pathology, which was arthritis.
A
Allyson
Guest
I found myself in the position of needing to revise my old reconcilliation, so I reactivated my old account (I was inactive since 2010) to see what resources people had on the subject that I had not heard of. I got some good suggestions right off the bat. You joined in after I was satisfied that I had new ideas to work with.
A
Allyson
Guest
Why would you assume that I did not beleive?
G
gama232
Guest
Then why the dogmatic statement that is the title of this thread? I reject it. It’s an opinion. It is either mistaken or deliberately wrong. Either way, Catholics are entitled to the truth. Not opinions. Catholics need to know that God created them. A piece of ‘real science’ I watched on TV. Scientists stated that if a planet had water, the building blocks of life [amino acids] and was the right distance from its Sun that life would appear there.
It took me a while to come to the conclusion that they don’t know that. They have no evidence of that.
Growing up, I trusted scientists more and I trusted them to present both sides of the story. Over the last 20 years I have lost my trust in human origins science. No matter how much it corrects itself it still insists on an atheist interpretation of the data. No, I don’t expect scientists or science books to tell me God did this or that but when I was in Catholic school that is exactly what I was taught. And the Church still teaches that.
It took me a while to come to the conclusion that they don’t know that. They have no evidence of that.
Growing up, I trusted scientists more and I trusted them to present both sides of the story. Over the last 20 years I have lost my trust in human origins science. No matter how much it corrects itself it still insists on an atheist interpretation of the data. No, I don’t expect scientists or science books to tell me God did this or that but when I was in Catholic school that is exactly what I was taught. And the Church still teaches that.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
It was my impression from the way you debated.
G
gama232
Guest
I don’t accept that. I find it too convenient. Plus the way the face was drawn.
Last edited:
A
Allyson
Guest
I debate this way because I am passionate about the positions I take. I am also not afraid to change my positions when I am wrong. That is why I rejected ID. I concluded I was wrong, and I have very good reasons for doing so.
I also spent a lot of time studying the Church teaching on creation during my theological studies, so yes, it is the kind of thing I would compose a question about.
Last edited:
A
Allyson
Guest
I made no dogmatic statement in the title of the thread. I simplified the actual conclusions of science to be catchy title that would convey the issue I had a question about. The actual conclusion is that the smallest bottleneck before behavioral modernity was somewhere between 1,000-12,000 people 100KYA.
If you find discussion of science to be a threat to your faith, then do not get involved in it. I would actually prefer that you study science, but it sounds like you did not have the best sources. I have never felt the evolution was a problem for my faith because I do not think that it is inherently athieistic. That is a common misconception.
It is what I learned in my Intro to Bio Anth class. The hunched possition was based on a pathological skeleton. the face, that was just bad artistic license. There were some people who were prejudiced against the idea that they had been other humans on the planet. We know better now.
G
gama232
Guest
Prejudiced? New answer and closer to the truth. After Darwin’s book, moving God away from human origins, inch by inch, was the goal. This isn’t a debate, it’s typical “we want to get our way” just like some people in 1950.
Science was my favorite subject growing up but I find parts of it corrupted now. I trust origins science least of all. Yes, science can be corrupted, facts or no facts. See the book Bending Science by Harvard University Press.
Science was my favorite subject growing up but I find parts of it corrupted now. I trust origins science least of all. Yes, science can be corrupted, facts or no facts. See the book Bending Science by Harvard University Press.
Last edited:
A
Allyson
Guest
Ernst Heackel wanted to call Neanderthals “homo stupidus.” He was not interested in adding them to the direct line in the human family tree at all.
All human enterprise is corruptable - that is the nature of being human after all.
I do not see rejection of science as the solution, just as I did not reject the Catholic faith because of the sex abuse scandal. Instead we should advocate for good science and know the science well enough to know the difference between good and bad.It is a sad thing that science is being rejected in America on both the far left and the far right. That needs to change.
G
gama232
Guest
I have no far left or far right. I don’t need either. The truth has no political affiliation. And I do reject what’s going on in this thread. Yes. Haeckel’s embryos. No hurry to get to the truth there. How long did that lie remain in textbooks? No. I will say it again - some people will do whatever it takes to get what they want. “SCIENCE” is not being rejected. It’s being used as a weapon. It should never be used that way but it has been used that way here for years.
Know the science well enough means little here. I’ve been studying science for decades.
Know the science well enough means little here. I’ve been studying science for decades.
Last edited:
A
Allyson
Guest
I did not mean you. I was making a general statement.
When I learned about them in HS in the 90’s; I learned about how he was sort of correct but not completely.
There is not a science conspiracy going on here.
Last edited:
A
Allyson
Guest
I am headed to bed, so I will reply to anything new in the morning. 
G
gama232
Guest
Haeckel was kind of correct? An amazing statement. He was totally wrong. He was a faker. Get the book Haeckel’s Embryos - Images, Evolution and Fraud by Nick Hopwood. Yes, fraud.
And here? Years of fake, false statements presented as true.
And here? Years of fake, false statements presented as true.
D
Dovekin
Guest
The one thing we know is that the soul, where this ability to know good and evil exists, is NOT genetic. It is passed on by physical generation, but always by an immediate act of God, never as a product of genes.
This is intrinsic to the rationality of the soul, which has to do with not being attached to the material senses. This is the problem with some systems, they confuse the creation of the soul with genetic processes.
- Status