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.
Pope Benedict XVI:

"In the book, Benedict reflected on a 1996 comment of his predecessor, John Paul II, who said that Charles Darwin’s theories on evolution were sound, as long as they took into account that creation was the work of God, and that Darwin’s theory of evolution was “more than a hypothesis.”

“The pope (John Paul) had his reasons for saying this,” Benedict said. “But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”

Benedict added that the immense time span that evolution covers made it impossible to conduct experiments in a controlled environment to finally verify or disprove the theory.

“We cannot haul 10,000 generations into the laboratory,” he said.’
“… the immense time span that evolution covers made it impossible to conduct experiments in a controlled environment to finally verify or disprove the theory.”

Impossible means impossible.
 
gama232 said:
Benedict added that the immense time span that evolution covers made it impossible to conduct experiments in a controlled environment to finally verify or disprove the theory.
Click to expand...
My apologies. When you said we should check to see what the pope thinks about evolution I assumed you meant the current pope. Who thinks it consistent with creation. Which you don’t. So with whom should we be checking?

And I really hate to have to point this out to you yet again but you are still quoting people who you say we should trust when they are saying things that you categorically deny yourself. ‘The immense time span that evolution covers’ is something you have constantly denied. Now you tell us that Pope Benedict has got it right.

Why do you keep doing this?
 
Last edited:
gama232 said:
the immense time span that evolution covers made it impossible to conduct experiments in a controlled environment to finally verify or disprove the theory.”

Impossible means impossible.
Click to expand...
No, not that evolution is impossible. He is claiming it is impossible to test and prove absolutely, but in that same phrasing that evolution happens is acknowledged. Science never speaks in terms of absolutes.
 
This topic comes up from time to time, and I don’t want to sound cynical; but no Encyclical is an ex-Cathedra teaching. When I went through an annulment trial, and I pointed out that the Encyclical “Castii Connubi” talks about husbands having “Priority” over the wife and children, the canon lawyer and priest merely pointed out that Castii Connubi IS not ex-cathedra. The only Ex-Cathedra teachings (explicit) that a canon lawyer would admit to refer to Mary. (Of all things, Mary is known as the “New Eve” – from whom all of us receive life through her flesh, Jesus the Christ. )

There are several problems with the scientific method; for in evolution debates a tacit assumption is made that if an experiment is repeated enough times, and comes out the same, that something is proven and never was or never will be different… and that’s simply false.

Just because every human you’ve met has either XX or XY chromosomes, doesn’t mean that a human can’t have XXY or other combinations of chromosomes. ( Polyploidy, Downs Syndrome, etc. are examples. )

The most important point, genetically, is that humans are composite beings. The chromosomes being the dust of the earth from which our bodies are made, but not strict rulers of our identities.

For example – two identical twins, with the same exact chromosomes – are distinct persons and personalities. eg: If you speak to only one of them, the other doesn’t have “telephathy” to hear what you said. The opposite effect can be found in gymnandadorf and chimeras; where one person, has the genetics of two distinct fertilized eggs. So the genes of two different people always hear the same words for the brain is fused (composed) of two sides. Look up Chimeras – and they are usually female with bilateral symmetry; becasue other possibilities are ususally fatal; but male chimeras do exist.

There are many human beings (today) who have only ONE head, but the genetics of two WOMEN inside them. In fact, their left ovary may be genetically a fraternal twin of their right ovary … which means one woman who had NO evidence she was any differet from any other women – can give birth to children that DNA tests will say are from different women.

Chimeraism, is not a disease or defect. It’s the flesh of two becoming exactly ONE person. But if one woman (one brain) can have two sets of genes in it – then why do mitocontrial eve arguments strictly base their results on the assumption that women only have two sets of alleles and only one mitochondria?

Any theory based on the assumption that every human has two X X,or an X and Y chromosomes or just one mitochondria is simply unprovable. Is the possibility of exceptions for mitochondria beyond science discovering???

Evolution is not a single theory but a whole family of different ideas.The theories are not totally WRONG, but no one thesis is totally RIGHT – the truth is complex. Adam could have two testicles that could each be a distinct genetic man, and eve had two ovaries each of which could be a distinct genetic woman. In some theories of evolution, these are likely scenarios in other’s they are unlikey.
No theory is definitive.
 
Let me give an alternate answer that goes all-in.

The problem with science is that it can’t rule out exceptions just because the human race looks a certain way genetically today. We can’t rule out that a mosquito bit one woman, and DIDN’T transfer her mitocondria to another woman; Mosquitoes transmit malaria and polio viruses… and just because mosquitoes mostly transmit disease doesn’t mean they never transmitted human DNA by God’s plan from all eternity … and not just disease.
(What were mosquitoes for BEFORE satan caused man to sin?)

Eve was made from Adam in the Genesis account; Genesis doesn’t tell us what genes God put into Eve – or whether they were modified – or whether he created mosquitoes to transfer the genes. Sceince can’t answer that at the present time. In the same way, Mary (the new eve) is a woman (ex-Cathedra). It’s not “Scientifically” probable/likely/or even sane to clam that a natural born man with Y chromosome would be offspring of ONLY a woman with TWO XX chromosomes.

So, Either 1) Jesus didn’t have a Y chromosome and therefore wasn’t a man, 2) Mary had both an X and Y Chromosome, but her Y Chromosome was turned off by God in the same way Eve’s was turned off; (OR) 3) God created a new Y Chromosome for Jesus from scratch – and therefore Jesus flesh is only partially human and partially freshly made DNA.

These 3 positions also apply to Adam and Eve, with respect to the idea of Eve’s first creation, and the introduction of Original sin. Can science tell us which of the 3) possibilities applies to Jesus let alone Adam? I think science can only rule out or support position 1) through a Genetic sample of Jesus’s body. But If Jesus were really a Yentil/ woman, then Jesus didn’t have a Y chromosome. And that’s theologically insane… for it defeats Jesus’ purpose in taking on pre-existing human flesh – in order to REDEEM the flesh; rather than just re-creating man from scratch.

eg: Man’s (XY) flesh includes woman’s (XX) Flesh, but not the other way around . I mean, unless a woman has a Y Chromosome that is de-activated; she simply doesn’t have all the flesh a man has.

( Gymnandadorfs, in ancient Greek, were identified genetically as MALE; Science hasn’t reached a different majority consensus, even today, based on Chromosomes. )

Religiously and Scientifically, A Male is still understood to express more of the human flesh than a female. A woman’s flesh is “part” of a man’s, and she doesn’t need “all” of “him” to exist. The other way around isn’t true, a man must have a woman’s X chromosomes to form most of his body.

I don’t mean that in a political way, or equality way, but in a scientific sense. Our understanding of Genetics is still tied to logical categories and assumptions shared by the person who wrote the Genesis account. If Males do not have a “Dominant” (Lord it over) Y Gene – they aren’t male. Woman was taken OUT of a man, (eg: she’s a sub-set of his flesh, by saving man – Jesus automatically saved women. )

Again, the Encyclical Castii Connubi teaches that a husband has “priority” over the wife and children; A VERY unpopular encyclical.
 
Last edited:
Huiou_Theou said:
There are several problems with the scientific method; for in evolution debates a tacit assumption is made that if an experiment is repeated enough times, and comes out the same, that something is proven and never was or never will be different… and that’s simply false.
Click to expand...
And science knows that it is false. All of science is provisional; every scientific theory is open to replacement by a better theory, evolution included. A theory can never be proved but it can be disproved. Newton’s theory of Gravity was never proved. It was always provisional and was replaced by Einstein’s General Relativity. That in its turn is still provisional and will be replaced by a theory of Quantum Gravity, once work on QG has progressed further than currently.

If you want proof, look to mathematics. The theory of Evolution is provisional. If you want to replace it then come up with a better theory. One that either explains the same things more simply, one that explains some things that evolution currently cannot or one that does both. Though be warned, doing that will take a lot of work.
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
Unfortunately for your argument, “human being” is not a scientifically defined species, the scientific species is Homo sapiens .
Click to expand...
Unfortunately for your criticism, the scientific definition of “species” is too vague to have real meaning.
rossum said:
All you need to do now is to show us how to detect whether or not a particular fossil had a soul or not.
Click to expand...
That would be a rational soul. And I did show the detection method as evidence of a mind that could abstract. To wit:
o_mlly said:
… anthropologists may have a better method to do so, e.g., evidence in the artifacts of symbolic art, tools fabricated for the only purpose of making tools (our earliest capitalists 😉).
Click to expand...
rossum said:
Souls are a theological construct while ancestors are a scientific construct. That can cause difficulties because they come from different bodies of knowledge.
Click to expand...
The truth is singular and independent of any “bodies of knowledge”. It would be scandalous if the different scientific fields accepted contrary positions.
 
o_mlly said:
I think that too liberal a use of the word “ancestors”. In the manner you use, you would have ancestors that were bacteria, no? I prefer to call all my ancestors as beings in the same species, i.e., human being.
Click to expand...
Exactly … God Created Man de novo

The Cambrian Fossil Record reveals complete Body Plans - PHYLUMS -
coming into existence - De Novo

Much to the Chagrin of Some - Humani Generis has never been disproven by Humans.

_
 
Last edited:
Dovekin said:
”If the human body takes its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God.” This is St John Paul’s restatement of HG.
Click to expand...
I think you misinterpret that quote from St. JPII. To wit:

Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question (HG).
Dovekin said:
Rational thought takes place in the soul, not in the body.
Click to expand...
No, rational thought requires both a body and a rational soul.
 
o_mlly said:
Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question (HG).
Click to expand...
Yes - This Lie never Dies, eh?

Exhibit A - This Thread…

_
 
Allyson said:
There is no contradiction because I am not insisting on the special creation of the human body like you appear to be.
Click to expand...
See my response to Rossum. It is always a contradiction when one claims the same thing can be and cannot be at the same time.
 
I think you misinterpret that quote from St. JPII. To wit:
The Church’s Magisterium is directly concerned with the question of evolution, for it involves the conception of man: Revelation teaches us that he was created in the image and likeness of God. The Conciliar Constitution Gaudium et Spes magnificently explained this doctrine, which is pivotal to Christian thought. It recalled that man is ‘the only creature on earth that God has wanted for its own sake’. In other terms, the human individual cannot be subordinated as a pure means or a pure instrument, either to the species or to society; he has value per se . He is a person. With his intellect and his will, he is capable of forming a relationship of communion, solidarity and self-giving with his peers. St. Thomas observes that man’s likeness to God resides especially in his speculative intellect, for his relationship with the object of his knowledge resembles God’s relationship with what he has created. But even more, man is called to enter into a relationship of knowledge and love with God himself, a relationship which will find its complete fulfilment beyond time, in eternity. All the depth and grandeur of this vocation are revealed to us in the mystery of the risen Christ. It is by virtue of his spiritual soul that the whole person possesses such a dignity even in his body.
St John Paul II. 1996.
Click to expand...
This is the first part of the paragraph I quoted earlier. I have no idea what you think I misunderstood about St. JPII, or Pius XII. Or why that misunderstanding is relevant to the discussion, so it is difficult to respond.
 
Dovekin said:
This is the first part of the paragraph I quoted earlier. I have no idea what you think I misunderstood about St. JPII, or Pius XII. Or why that misunderstanding is relevant to the discussion, so it is difficult to respond.
Click to expand...
And here is the next sentence from St. JPII that you did not cite from “Truth Cannot Contradict Truth”:
Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.
Click to expand...
And,
And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution. On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based. Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist and spiritualist interpretations. What is to be decided here is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology.
Click to expand...
St. JPII indicates that the theories of evolution that claim based on unsound philosophical systems (one’s that ignore firs principles) that existence of man can be explained by materialist, reductionist theories are to be rejected.
 
Last edited:
o_mlly said:
St. JPII indicates that the theories of evolution that claim based on unsound philosophical systems (one’s that ignore firs principles) that existence of man can be explained by materialist, reductionist theories are to be rejected.
Click to expand...
I have not seen anyone posting in this thread say that. All posters accept that the human soul does not evolve, but is directly created by God. The question is over the origin of the human body. It is the body that carries the “human genetic data” that this thread is discussing.
 
The soul can be ignored. The origin of the human body and its creation must involve God.
 
o_mlly said:
St. JPII indicates that the theories of evolution that claim based on unsound philosophical systems (one’s that ignore firs principles) that existence of man can be explained by materialist, reductionist theories are to be rejected.
Click to expand...
Yes that was my original point, when I quoted that part of the paragraph. You said I misunderstood, but now make the same point I made then?
 
Huiou_Theou said:
Any theory based on the assumption that every human has two X X,or an X and Y chromosomes or just one mitochondria is simply unprovable. Is the possibility of exceptions for mitochondria beyond science discovering???

Evolution is not a single theory but a whole family of different ideas.The theories are not totally WRONG, but no one thesis is totally RIGHT – the truth is complex. Adam could have two testicles that could each be a distinct genetic man, and eve had two ovaries each of which could be a distinct genetic woman. In some theories of evolution, these are likely scenarios in other’s they are unlikey.
No theory is definitive.
Click to expand...
You bring up a good point with Chimearism. I am fascinated by such cases too. This is an interesting thought experiment. In theory, Adam and Eve as two people could be as you described, capable of passing on the genetics of two distinct sets of chromosomes. However, I think the main issue here is the same. Instead of complete genome from two people, you would have the equivalent of genomes from four people, and that is not enough to avoid the pitfalls of inbreeding. The bottleneck is still too small.
Huiou_Theou said:
Religiously and Scientifically, A Male is still understood to express more of the human flesh than a female. A woman’s flesh is “part” of a man’s, and she doesn’t need “all” of “him” to exist. The other way around isn’t true, a man must have a woman’s X chromosomes to form most of his body.

I don’t mean that in a political way, or equality way, but in a scientific sense. Our understanding of Genetics is still tied to logical categories and assumptions shared by the person who wrote the Genesis account. If Males do not have a “Dominant” (Lord it over) Y Gene – they aren’t male. Woman was taken OUT of a man, (eg: she’s a sub-set of his flesh, by saving man – Jesus automatically saved women. )

Again, the Encyclical Castii Connubi teaches that a husband has “priority” over the wife and children; A VERY unpopular encyclical.
Click to expand...
I am not sure where you were going with the second comment, but as someone who was in an abusive relationship (luckily not married), this is the kind of thinking that legitimizes abuse. That is something we can all agree to leave behind.
 
rossum said:
I have not seen anyone posting in this thread say that. All posters accept that the human soul does not evolve, but is directly created by God. The question is over the origin of the human body. It is the body that carries the “human genetic data” that this thread is discussing.
Click to expand...
? The title of the thread indicates we are discussing the evolution of man, body and rational soul.
The origin of a hominid body form does not explain the origin of man.
Reconciling Humani Generis with the human genetic data showing that there never were just two first parents
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top