Two questions about Adam and Eve

[Tom_Baum]

As I said in post 96 .
“The misunderstanding is most likely due to the fact that few Catholics are aware of the protocol for defining Catholic doctrines. I often repeat that not every verse of every chapter of Genesis automatically becomes a Catholic doctrine. This is a basic in the protocol of the visible Catholic Church.”

You might be interested in some of the other problems (post 96) that some Catholics have regarding the OP question 2.

Would you say that incest was legal, moral and right in the “Eyes of God” until the time of the Old Testament Moses or to a time before Moses of the Old Testament?

 

[grannymh]

Would you say that incest was legal, moral and right in the “Eyes of God” until the time of the Old Testament Moses or to a time before Moses of the Old Testament?

Marriage between siblings/cousins was only necessary in the first generations. The length of female fertility and overlapping generations quickly expanded the human population before genetic diseases had the required time to mature.

God’s allowance of initial sibling/cousin marriages preserved the structure of the totally human family which was needed to perpetuate the human species. God’s blessing of fertility is found in the first chapter of Genesis.

 

[Gorgias]

Yup, you’re right there. 2 single humans could not start the human race. It’s only hard to understand when religious dogma gets in the way.

I think that the argument would be that two individual hominins seem to not be able to have been the sole ancestors of all subsequent hominins. That’s quite a different statement than the one you’ve made about “the human race,” which depends on how you define ‘human’ (which, as it turns out, is very difficult to do, from a scientific perspective). Moreover, whatever definition you argue for will be distinct from the theological definition of humanity, which has to do with the quality of having a soul (which, as it turns out, can’t be anything that science argues for or against… )

 

[Gorgias]

"grannymh:

If you believe that the elders in the Catholic Church can somehow tap into divine guidance, what happened when they got it wrong about Galileo?
They are men doing their best with the knowledge and influences of the times.

Thank you. This is an excellent example that hundreds of Catholic CAF members are not aware of the comprehensive protocol of the visible Catholic Church on planet earth when it comes to the extensive process of properly declaring. Divine Revelation during a major ecumenical council.

Granny: I don’t think that Kelt’s problem is a misunderstanding of how doctrine is declared, but rather, what is and what isn’t doctrine.

Kelt: Two thoughts for you: what, precisely, do you suggest that the Church got ‘wrong’ with Galileo? The issue in play at that time wasn’t whether Galileo’s theories were right or wrong, but whether they were provable. Since they were unprovable by Galileo, the Church asked him not to proclaim them as if they were proven. He refused. In print. Mocking a pope as he did so.

(Yes, Galileo’s theories (which weren’t new – Copernicus had already expressed them, long before) caused the Church to reconsider whether the creation stories that had been divinely revealed were true in a scientific sense (as opposed to simply a theological sense). The assertions of scientific truth weren’t part of the doctrine of the Church. So… what was it that the Church got wrong, again? )

Second: Granny is asserting that the Church makes theological statements – what’s the particular theological statement that you’re suggesting that the Church is making, which opposes science? (In my previous post, I already pointed out that science’s statements about hominins don’t necessarily overlap with theology’s statements about souls…)

 

[Gorgias]

tdgesq:

I did read your earlier response about your take on the current state of scientific evolutionary theory. While you conclude that there is a conflict with Catholic teaching, I don’t follow the reasoning… I don’t perceive the same conflict you do on this issue.

Not seeing the conflict is common because many people have not caught up with the science of human evolution in the 21st century.

This isn’t the first time that you’ve responded to criticisms of your position, granny, by asserting that we don’t understand science. Trust us: we do. What’s illogical is your continued assertion that science and theology are playing in the same sandbox here (which, as it were, they aren’t). If more than one person is telling you that your assertions don’t hold water, there are more possibilities than “you don’t understand science.” Just sayin’…

I am a simple granny who did not do well in math. However, I can understand that a scientific population of thousands as the source of human nature

Right. And can you show us, again, where science is positing anything about human nature which proceeds from human souls? Maybe that’s the part that we’re missing… and, as it turns out, is the part you’re unable to demonstrate.

A small note about genetic material. If you are a vertebrate with both digestive and immune systems, you have plenty of genetic material from the first two humans, that is, if you consider the first two humans as having a true human nature. The Catholic Church teaches that the first two humans did have a true human nature.

The Church has a theological position on human digestive and immune systems? That’s new by me. Maybe it came from that protocol for declaring doctrine that you keep talking about…

 

[grannymh]

For General Information
about the sentence I use quite often in discussions about the first three chapters of Genesis.

The protocol for proclaiming Catholic doctrines begins with the recognition that Divine Revelation needs to be presented in a formal fashion. This recognition is seen in the various Epistles in the New Testament. in which the writers are stating Divine truths. Romans 5: 12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15: 21-22 are good examples considering the subject matter of this thread.

Following the simple format of the first Jerusalem Council in Acts, chapter 15, Church leaders gathered together whenever there was contrasting or contradicting teachings regarding basic Divine Revelation. The struggle over Arianism is a good example. Interestingly, Arianism continues today in various forms. Gathering together in a major ecumenical council, Church leaders are following chapter 14, Gospel of John. This is the promise of the Holy Spirit. For a list of these councils and the CCC references to them, please refer to the “Index of Citations” starting on page 689,* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition*.

***What is very important to understand is that not every verse of every chapter of every book in Holy Scripture automatically becomes a Catholic doctrine according to protocol. Once people accept this basic of the protocol for proclaiming doctrines, the doctrines flowing from the first three chapters of Genesis can be discussed intelligently, that is, without the fighting over literal words. The obvious difficulty is that first one has to know the basic doctrines flowing from the first three chapters of Genesis.

The general protocol for discovering fundamental doctrines flowing from the first three chapters of Genesis is that the teachings found in Scripture and those taught by the early Church Fathers are prayerfully examined. In addition, writings of saints, including poetry, are also examined. To understand how large a task this is, please check the footnotes in the CCC.

Because not every teaching automatically becomes a Catholic doctrine, the defining of a doctrine can be a very long process. A significant amount of research and discussion takes place as preparation for a major ecumenical council. Councils themselves can be in session for a long time.

The simple sentence that not every verse in the first three chapters of Genesis automatically becomes a Catholic doctrine is a fair summary indicating of all of the above. However, it is understandable that some people would not seek the verses which did contribute to the understanding of a particular point of Divine Revelation. It is understandable that some people could be so bent on denying Adam and Eve that they overlook the fact that defining Divine Revelation is not a toss of a coin.

In my humble observation, once people accept the basic that not all verses are literal Catholic doctrines, discussions would become more civil/charitable.

 

[tdgesq]

However, I can understand that a scientific population of thousands as the source of human nature (Adam’s) does contradict the Catholic teaching of a founding population of two.

There is no “human” nature without a human soul. A human being is a form/matter composite. The substantial form of man is the human soul. This is all classic Aquinas, which the Church well understands.

A small note about genetic material. If you are a vertebrate with both digestive and immune systems, you have plenty of genetic material from the first two humans, that is, if you consider the first two humans as having a true human nature. The Catholic Church teaches that the first two humans did have a true human nature.

Can a “human” nature exist without a human soul? The answer to this question will reveal if we are conflating metaphysical concepts with biological concepts. Now is it likely that I have plenty of genetic material from the first two “humans”?:

The probability of having DNA from all of your genealogical ancestors at a particular generation becomes vanishingly small very rapidly; there is a 99.6% chance that you will have DNA from all of your 16 great-great grandparents, only a 54% of sharing DNA with all 32 of your G-G-G grandparents, and a 0.01% chance for your 64 G-G-G-G grandparents. You only have to go back 5 generations for genealogical relatives to start dropping off your DNA tree. How Many Ancestors Share Our DNA?

 

[Gorgias]

There is no “human” nature without a human soul. A human being is a form/matter composite. The substantial form of man is the human soul.

Can a “human” nature exist without a human soul? The answer to this question will reveal if we are conflating metaphysical concepts with biological concepts.

Precisely.

On the other hand, perhaps we agree because we fail to understand science…

 

[grannymh]

Apparently, there is bit of a problem with Genesis 1: 26 -27 and the simple questions in the opening post.

This is happening because some people are having difficulty understanding that in order to answer the two questions in post 1, the reality of Adam and Eve, as taught by the Catholic Church, needs to be accepted. Perhaps, the real difficulty is in accepting the Catholic Church as the ultimate teacher when it comes to traveling to heaven.

From the position of Catholic Apologetics, Genesis 1: 26-27 is key simply because these two very basic verses, along with others, make it possible for the real descendants of Adam and Eve to benefit from the visible Catholic Church. Stop and think for a moment. In order to benefit from the Seven Sacraments, including the Eucharist, one’s nature has to have a spiritual principle. This spiritual principle aka spiritual soul is what is meant when we say that we are in the image of God Who is a transcendent super-natural Pure Spirit without the restrictions of a material/physical world. The simple apologetics teaching is that the nature of a real descendant of Adam and Eve unites the spiritual and material worlds. This truth is found in paragraph 355,* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. *I warmly invite those readers who are interested in human nature to continue reading the paragraphs following CCC 355. In addition, I suggest reading CCC 1730-1732.

What is evident in verses following Genesis 1: 26-27 is that human nature is also material. Adam’s body will need material nourishment so God graciously created a world with a garden. Our need for bodily nourishment demonstrates that we have inherited Adam’s basic genetics that determined the need to eat.

What is also evident in the following Scripture references to human nature is that Adam’s human nature has a relationship with a transcendent superior super-natural being Who is his Creator. This being an unequal relationship, meaning that there is a significant difference between a Creator and a creature, we find some basic rules in order for the human Adam to maintain this super-natural relationship. These rules are part of Catholic teachings.

While technically, Adam could not physically be active in the Catholic Church, he still had to follow the same Catholic instructions regarding his relationship with the Creator.

Links to the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[cfauster]

There is no need for me to derail this thread by getting into a discussion of what is lean data and what is not lean data. That is up to the editors of peer reviewed journals.

I don’t yet know what is meant here by the distinction between “lean” vs. “not lean” data. As far as the human population genetics question, I think the data are quite clear.

“There was a bottleneck. There were likely fewer people alive during that time than the number of fans attending a typical NHL hockey game. (We don’t know if they were all together in one village, of course, but the total was small.) However, it was not two people. Our species diverged as a population. The data are absolutely clear about that.”
From biologos.org/blog/does-genetics-point-to-a-single-primal-couple

The issue is currently under discussion again at BioLogos:
biologos.org/blog/series/adam-eve-and-human-population-genetics

 

[grannymh]

How Many Ancestors Share Our DNA?

To understand this link, I did the common sense thing of going to the following information on the site. From tab “About Genetic Geneology”
“Genetic genealogy or genetic ancestry testing is the use of DNA to study ancient origins and relatedness between individuals. When combined with traditional paper genealogy, it is a powerful tool for the genealogist’s toolbox. There are four types of genetic ancestry testing: Y-chromosome, X-chromosome, mtDNA, and autosomal DNA test.”

“Genetic” scientists, including paleoanthropologists, have a toolbox of thousands and thousands of genes and billions of chemical base pairs. Human descendants of Adam and Eve are determined by their entire genome. An additional valuable piece of information is that each individual carries two copies or versions of a gene. The term for these versions is alleles. Alleles develop in a natural way, that is, there can be tiny changes or major changes in the original gene over extended periods of time. In turn, alleles can also change. At conception, the child receives one copy of a particular gene from each parent. With some imaginative thinking, it is easy to understand that by now there could be hundreds of existing alleles of the DRB1 gene.

Applying these basic concepts to real descendants of Adam and Eve, it is entirely possible that a child could receive an allele of a particular gene, for example the DRB1 gene, which developed only a few hundred years ago, well after the appearance of Adam and Eve. What needs to be noted is that the DRB1 gene is part of the human immune system which is integral to human nature. Catholicism directly teaches that Adam had a true human nature. Therefore, it is proper to say that current humans inherited their general immune system from Adam, albeit there were numerous alleles since the dawn of human history.

 

[Gorgias]

Applying these basic concepts to real descendants of Adam and Eve, it is entirely possible that a child could receive an allele of a particular gene, for example the DRB1 gene, which developed only a few hundred years ago, well after the appearance of Adam and Eve. What needs to be noted is that the DRB1 gene is part of the human immune system which is integral to human nature. Catholicism directly teaches that Adam had a true human nature. Therefore, it is proper to say that current humans inherited their general immune system from Adam, albeit there were numerous alleles since the dawn of human history.

The assertion you made, which I’ve highlighted above, is critical to your argument. You make that assertion without any substantiation, however. How, exactly, is the immune system “integral” to “human nature”? What does the immune system that humans possess have to do with the human soul (which, as it were, is what is, in fact, “integral to human nature”)?

 

[GEddie]

The assertion you made, which I’ve highlighted above, is critical to your argument. You make that assertion without any substantiation, however. How, exactly, is the immune system “integral” to “human nature”? What does the immune system that humans possess have to do with the human soul (which, as it were, is what is, in fact, “integral to human nature”)?

The immune system is integral to human nature as without it, there is no human body, and therefore no human nature.

In this sense it is co-integral to the human soul (which needs the body in order to live life).

Human Nature encompasses soul + body; psyche + soma.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[grannymh]

I don’t yet know what is meant here by the distinction between “lean” vs. “not lean” data. As far as the human population genetics question, I think the data are quite clear.

Checking the dictionary, I am using lean in the sense of meager or not prosperous as in the lean years. Here I am using it as if something is lacking. Not lean would be fullness like a fat budget. When my mind tries to go back in time, I consider data as being what can be gleaned from fossils. Data becomes something I can physically touch which is not like normal mathematical data for formulas that lead to proper conclusions.

You brought up a good point, thank you. As for data in the usual sense, I leave the evaluation of that to those who review research for journals. Interestingly, a major journal recalled a paper because of sloppy record keeping with the comment that what was presented appeared to be correct. I am interested in methods and materials and occasionally a “discussion” which sometimes are in ordinary English. Unfortunately, the “explanations” which Francisco J. Ayala used in 1995 are now automatic updated assumptions; therefore, most of what I attempt to read is over my head.

I am grateful for the cladistics system because I do understand its diagrams.
There are also some great pictures like the cover of Science, 18 October 2013, which is the photo of a 1.77 million-year-old complete adult skull from the site of Dmanisi, Georgia.

I agree that the data we have is quite clear. Then up pops this archaic being along with fossilized bones of four additional individuals discovered in close proximity and I start to wonder what else is out there that we haven’t seen or in my case, haven’t physically touched.

Maybe, there will be a being with a fossilized name tag that says “Adam.” :yeah_me:

 

[Gorgias]

The immune system is integral to human nature as without it, there is no human body, and therefore no human nature.

Thanks for taking a stab at my question, but I don’t think your answer works. I could use your response and say that the heart is integral to human nature, since without it there’s no body. Yet, the heart doesn’t make us human – dogs, cats, and pigs have hearts (heck, even snakes have a heart!)… but that doesn’t make them human. Your argument really is just pointing out to us that the immune system supports life; it doesn’t demonstrate that the immune system is what makes us human.

Rather, our humanity proceeds from our soul, as the catechism affirms:

CCC:

364 The human body … is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit.

365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body: i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.

In this sense [the immune system] is co-integral to the human soul (which needs the body in order to live life).

No – the immune system is part of man’s body; it’s not that there’s a “spiritual nature” and a “physical nature”, but in the absence of a soul, you have a hominin, but not a human. (In the absence of an immune system, you have a human – maybe one without a long life span, but a human nonetheless.)

 

[cfauster]

My apologies in advance - I realize that, however relevant to the last couple of posts, biology is in fact not central to this thread. Nonetheless … if interested in comparing the human immune system with the immune systems of other creatures, here are some links that might be helpful:

britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/283636/immune-system/215595/Immune-capacity-among-invertebrates

ocw.mit.edu/courses/biology/7-345-evolution-of-the-immune-system-spring-2005/

els.net/WileyCDA/ElsArticle/refId-a0020781.html

 

[GEddie]

Ok. I am not certain whether you were asking a question, or making a point, but I accept your rebuttal.

My point was that the immune system – like our head, or our breathing – is intrinsic to the “human nature”, in that without any of these aspects there is no human being.

Of course none of those in itself makes us human, as dogs, cats and geckos have immune cells and heads, and breathe.

But the lack of any of them results in a human nonbeing – a ghost, which although spiritual, is no more “human” than a dead body.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[Kelt]

To understand this link, I did the common sense thing of going to the following information on the site. From tab “About Genetic Geneology”
“Genetic genealogy or genetic ancestry testing is the use of DNA to study ancient origins and relatedness between individuals. When combined with traditional paper genealogy, it is a powerful tool for the genealogist’s toolbox. There are four types of genetic ancestry testing: Y-chromosome, X-chromosome, mtDNA, and autosomal DNA test.”

“Genetic” scientists, including paleoanthropologists, have a toolbox of thousands and thousands of genes and billions of chemical base pairs. Human descendants of Adam and Eve are determined by their entire genome. An additional valuable piece of information is that each individual carries two copies or versions of a gene. The term for these versions is alleles. Alleles develop in a natural way, that is, there can be tiny changes or major changes in the original gene over extended periods of time. In turn, alleles can also change. At conception, the child receives one copy of a particular gene from each parent. With some imaginative thinking, it is easy to understand that by now there could be hundreds of existing alleles of the DRB1 gene.

Applying these basic concepts to real descendants of Adam and Eve, it is entirely possible that a child could receive an allele of a particular gene, for example the DRB1 gene, which developed only a few hundred years ago, well after the appearance of Adam and Eve. What needs to be noted is that the DRB1 gene is part of the human immune system which is integral to human nature. Catholicism directly teaches that Adam had a true human nature. Therefore, it is proper to say that current humans inherited their general immune system from Adam, albeit there were numerous alleles since the dawn of human history.

Hello again - we really should be doing other things - my house needs my attention
However, you’re doing it again…you’re starting with dogma and you’re trying to find bits of science to fit it!
I don’t understand a lot of what you mention…ie: The Protocol for proclaiming Catholic doctrines begins with the recognition…etc.
It is sooooo complicated…all these catechisms
It put me in mind of the church as a huge juggernaut full of rules and laws and traditions…and then I thought of a better simile/ metaphor. I liken the church to a huge lumbering glacier slowly growing and accreting pebbles and rocks (traditions/laws/dogma) and moving through history ( time frame different of course). On its way it squashes all it meets (questioning) flattening it out (must have obedience) and continually deposits pebbles (laws) along its way, out of context, many years later and far from whence they originated…

 

[grannymh]

Ok. I am not certain whether you were asking a question, or making a point, but I accept your rebuttal.

My point was that the immune system – like our head, or our breathing – is intrinsic to the “human nature”, in that without any of these aspects there is no human being.

Of course none of those in itself makes us human, as dogs, cats and geckos have immune cells and heads, and breathe.

But the lack of any of them results in a human nonbeing – a ghost, which although spiritual, is no more “human” than a dead body.

ICXC NIKA.

Thank you.
My comment was this. What needs to be noted is that the DRB1 gene is part of the human immune system which is integral to human nature.

---

The bold was added by a replying poster. The human immune system which is integral to human nature is evidence that Adam had a real body and not a metaphoric body. Our own immune system is evidence that we have a real body and not a metaphoric body.

Maybe I should have asked a third question – Is Adam human? Common sense would answer that because we humans are descended from Adam, Adam himself would need to be a real human. We are not metaphors and neither is Adam.

 

[Gorgias]

My point was that the immune system – like our head, or our breathing – is intrinsic to the “human nature”, in that without any of these aspects there is no human being.

No – that speaks to maintenance of life, not of presence (or maintenance) of human nature. Other animals have immune systems; that does not make them human. It keeps them alive – just as it keeps us alive – but it doesn’t make us (or them) human.