Were there others present at the time of Adam?

[donsnow]

Their is a certain number of members of a population that must exist to continue without extinction due to biological defects. If Adam and Eve were the only ones then we wouldn’t have made it.

Good evening, gubernova,

Since Adam and Eve were perfect creations of God, and there are biological defects, then couldn’t one reason, there were two perfect parents who would have had perfect children except there were no large gene pool, so their progeny were lesser creatures?

Furthermore, where does the “certain number” of population come from?

God loves you,
Don

 

[chris62]

Obviously Adam was alone when he was first created but then God made Eve. The only children of Adam and Eve which the Bible mentions are Cain, Abel and Seth but that does not mean that there were not others, including daughters.

In the encyclical Humani generis Pope Pius XII taught that Catholics must believe that all human beings must be the descendants of Adam and Eve. If this were not true it would negate the doctrine of original sin.

Thanks Gary.

Thats about where I am. I think.

 

[chris62]

Good evening, gubernova,

Since Adam and Eve were perfect creations of God, and there are biological defects, then couldn’t one reason, there were two perfect parents who would have had perfect children except there were no large gene pool, so their progeny were lesser creatures?

Furthermore, where does the “certain number” of population come from?

God loves you,
Don

Thanks Don,

You seem to be a very knowledgable Catholic. We need more of you.

God Bless you too.

 

[chris62]

Thanks to every one for letting me know your thoughts.

There is so much genuine knowledge (and love) on this forum it is absolutely fantastic.

This is a great place to be.

God bless.

 

[panevino]

Yes, they had other children.

Genesis 5:4
After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters.

I recently discovered that Abraham appears to of married his half sister (same father/different mother) gen 20

Given the extended life of Adam and the children and the many children
It seems pretty reasonable to hold that they managed it all from adam and eve alone.

Interesting and helpfull for my sons questions.

Particularly the law adjustment arriving later!

 

[shocktrooper]

Does the church consider Neanderthal Man fully human and therefor had a soul?

If the Neanderthal Man was the first with a** human soul**, then yes. The human soul is what makes a person. A dead body is no longer a person, but a corps, mere material. The person (soul) has gone on to be judged.

The Church has no reason to take a side when it comes to the issue of when life for mankind started. She simply leaves it at Adam and Eve are real people and we all descend from them.

The problem I have with humans coming from preexisting animals is this…

• on a scientific and material level, it is far from being proven; regardless of what people say. It can never be proven or duplicated with the same environmental variables.
• and more importantly,IMO, it does not square with Sacred Scripture or Tradition. A soul is what animates us and animals. If you remove the soul from an animal, it is lifeless, meaning it is not moving at all but decaying. If you remove the human soul from a person’s body, the body is also lifeless. We have life in us because of our souls, not because of our bodies. If we posit that God took an animal (something with an animal soul and not rational/human) then he would be destroying a preexisting animal to bring about the person of Adam. Again, I just don’t see any such idea in Scripture or Tradition that God took an animal (matter that was already created with a soul) and then did the old switch-a-roo on it, making it a person by breathing a new and updated rational soul (one that can know, love and serve God) into it.

IMO, again, it is more of an act of blind faith to believe that, than just believing what the Church has always taught, up till the modern age where generational snobbery is so prevalent, meaning we think we are so much smarter, now and all other generations are just a bunch of “neanderthals”.

As Catholics, I never understood why this teaching is so hard to submit to and accept by just giving it our ascent of faith. I know you are not Catholic, or Christian, so I understand your position. Maybe one day, you will be with us in the Body of Christ.

God bless.
Pax Christi.

 

[atheistgirl]

• on a scientific and material level, it is far from being proven; regardless of what people say. It can never be proven or duplicated with the same environmental variables.
• and more importantly,IMO, it does not square with Sacred Scripture or Tradition. .

I found this reference which I think is interesting:

“Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God” (July 23rd 2004) La Civiltà Cattolica 2004, IV, 254-286

Indeed, a 2004 report of the International Theological Commission, the body of theologians that officially gives theological advice to the pope, highlighted ways in which continuing research and growing consensus within the scientific community on the question of polygenism encourages Catholic theologians to consider ways of accommodating polygenism into their theological reflections.[54] The commission observes, for example, the following:

“In its original unity – of which Adam is the symbol – the human race is made in the image of the divine Trinity.”

“While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage.”

“Catholic theology affirms that that the emergence of the first members of the human species (whether as individuals or in populations) represents an event that is not susceptible of a purely natural explanation and which can appropriately be attributed to divine intervention. Acting indirectly through causal chains operating from the beginning of cosmic history, God prepared the way for what Pope John Paul II has called ‘an ontological leap…the moment of transition to the spiritual.’”

The references to Adam as symbol, to “a humanoid population of common genetic lineage,” and to Blessed John Paul II’s identification of “an ontological leap,” all demonstrate ways that official Catholic teaching is moving in the direction of appropriating not simply certain kinds of evolution theory, but also such once-dubious hypotheses, now theories such as polygenism.

Sarah x

 

[shocktrooper]

I found this reference which I think is interesting:

“Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God” (July 23rd 2004) La Civiltà Cattolica 2004, IV, 254-286

Sarah x

Sarah, this reference you gave, though sad to see it at all, means nothing. This commission has no authority whatsoever and they “advise” things that go against the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. The CCC is the clear teachings of the Church and it constantly references previous Church professions that speak of Adam and Eve being real historic people that we all descended from. Until we see an official Church document with Magisterium authority that says otherwise, we are simply being disobedient to our faith.

I just heard something the other day like…if the Catholic Church finds Herself in a charlie-foxtrot, then it was surely an inside job. Our biggest problem these days are those from within, not from without like yourself. You can easily find some priest or bishop that has no problem saying that polygenism is an acceptable position for Catholics, but when you call them on it, they simply ignore the Church’s teachings and claim that Vatican II changed all that. Their interpretation of Vatican II is faulty and it is clear that it is because the CCC is a product of Vatican II.

CCC 390
390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.264 Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.265

265 Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1513; Pius XII: DS 3897; Paul VI: AAS 58
(1966), 654.

Footnote 265 directly references Humani Generis and Pope Pius XII’s teachings against polygenism.

Pius XII, Encyclical Humani Generis
Polygenism is not acceptable because it cannot be seen how it could be reconciled with the Church’s doctrine on original sin, “which proceeds from a sin truly committed by one Adam and, transmitted to all by generation, is found in, and proper to, each.” [cf. DS 3897]

 

[donsnow]

Thanks Don,

You seem to be a very knowledgable Catholic. We need more of you.

God Bless you too.

Good morning, Chris,

You’re welcome.

Even though I have an identical twin brother, nevertheless, there is only the one of me.

God loves you,
Don

 

[donsnow]

Good morning, all,

I think that because of the Toba supervolcano eruption 74,000 years ago, that mankind got a clean start, then. Please see this link.

toba.arch.ox.ac.uk/

The article mentions that the explosion caused a genetic “bottleneck”. I can’t find the magazine article that stated 95% of the Earth’s population was wiped out by the results of the Toba explosion.

What I want to point out with this link, is that this cataclysm showed an important and abrupt rebuttal to Uniformtarianism evolution. Which theory states that everything happened slowly, over millions, even billions, of years of time. During the mid 1800’s, in Europe, there were two contending theories of evolution. One was Uniformtarianism. The other was Cataclysmic. Each claimed its method was the only way things evolved, so both were wrong. However, each had its part of the bigger picture: both gradual and cataclysmic events shaped our planet and the life on it.

The consensus interpretation of DNA evidence could change in the future.In my mind, claims against one parental couple for mankind are premature.

God loves all of you, lurkers, too,
Don

 

[bz5]

HUMANI GENERIS

ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XII CONCERNING SOME FALSE OPINIONS THREATENING TO UNDERMINE THE FOUNDATIONS OF CATHOLIC DOCTRINE AUGUST 12, 1950

1. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which through generation is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.

I used to be comfortable with the idea of Adam and Eve being first and then God creating others we just don’t know about until I found out about the above teaching some years ago. So yes, OP, we must have to believe that there were incestual relationships for at least a couple of generations.

 

[garysibio]

Does the church consider Neanderthal Man fully human and therefor had a soul? The reason I ask is we know Neanderthals and H. Sapiens interbred and modern non african populations exhibit something in the area of 4% Neanderthal DNA. mbe.oxfordjournals.org/search?submit=yes&fulltext=neanderthal&x=11&y=14

The dna evidence is clear that there wasnt just one man and one woman from whom all humans descended.

From everything Ive read on these forums I understand than the church embraces science and scientific discovery, much to it’s credit.

But where does that leave the concept of original sin, if we know african and non african populations have a different genetic lineage?

Does the church have a view as to whether H. neanderthal, erectus, habilis etc had souls?

Sarah x

Apparently you know a little about anthropology but maybe not enough. First, I doubt that the Church has addressed this issue. If it has, I am unaware of it. I will give you my opinion, however.

Fact: If you take all of the skulls of Homo Habilis, H. erectus, H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens we have today, there is less variation in them than there is among all of the people alive today. (BTW, many anthropologists say that Neanderthal Man is a subspecies of modern man.) Yet all of the humans alive today are lumped together as Homo sapiens. Taxonomy is an artificial categorization that is placed upon nature based on criteria deemed important by those who are doing the categorizing. It’s the same principle that explains why Eskimos have so many words for snow, actually.

In short, there are no substantial differences between the four species other than the imaginations of those who divided them up. Therefore, yes, they were humans and had souls.

Yes, the Church does embrace science. I can’t fault people for making the assumption that evolution is proven beyond a reasonable doubt with all of the propaganda they get about it in the schools, but it is far from certain. There are many problems in the theory that seem insurmountable. I’ll point out two of the biggest:

1. Biochemistry is beginning to show us that many of the processes in living beings are way to complex to have arisen by random chance. Processes such as photosynthesis, respiration, even blood-clotting contain so many steps which, if missing, would render the entire process non-functional. Evolution demands that these processes developed slowly over hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of years but is unable to explain how. How does an organism evolve when it can’t process the oxygen it inhales?
2. The huge gaps in the fossil record which Darwin said was the biggest problem with his theory are still with us today. Darwin believed that the gaps of his day would fill in those gaps but they still exist. Despite the wealth of fossils we have today, heck, I even have a bunch in my personal collection, none of the gaps of Darwin’s day have been filled in.

 

[atheistgirl]

I can’t fault people for making the assumption that evolution is proven **beyond a reasonable doubt **with all of the propaganda they get about it in the schools, but it is far from certain. .

Im sorry, but that’s just incorrect. Evolution is a fact, both micro and macro. We may fill in the gaps at a future date, come to understand new processe we were not previously aware of etc, who knows, thats what science is all about, discovery, but there is absolutely nothing that will destroy the fact of evolution. Every scientific field confirms it. And the church does not dispute it.

Sarah x

 

[garysibio]

Im sorry, but that’s just incorrect. Evolution is a fact, both micro and macro. We may fill in the gaps at a future date, come to understand new processe we were not previously aware of etc, who knows, thats what science is all about, discovery, but there is absolutely nothing that will destroy the fact of evolution. Every scientific field confirms it. And the church does not dispute it.

Sarah x

I suggest you read Dr. Michael Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box. Behe is a biochemist. He is Catholic but the book is entirely non-theological. He gives some great examples of processes which take place which could not possibly have arisen through evolution.

Your defense of evolution is sad at best. Your entire argument is that evolution is true because of what we might discover sometime in the future. There is no shortage of fossils today and there is no shortage of gaps in that fossil record. I didn’t mention it before but the Pre-Cambrian Explosion is also an embarassment to evolutionists.

 

[atheistgirl]

I didn’t mention it before but the Pre-Cambrian Explosion is also an embarassment to evolutionists.

Good grief!

sigh

 

[garysibio]

Good grief!

sigh

Is that what you are offering as evidence that I am wrong?

 

[atheistgirl]

Is that what you are offering as evidence that I am wrong?

Please produce evidence - peer reviewed scientific papers by reputable scientists - that the preCambrian explosion in any way calls into question the fact of evolution.

You claim scientists are embarrassed. Please support the claim. Or that the debates between for example Gould and Morris in any way casts doubt on evolution and posits an alternative system for the development of life on earth.

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

but is unable to explain how. How does an organism evolve when it can’t process the oxygen it inhales?

The mechanisms are extremely well understood and written about. The evolution of the lungs are well documented and illustrated. Your incredulity at what only appears to be irreducable complexity can be easily overcome by reading some excellent peer reviewed papers on Plos One, Oxford Journals etc.

Sarah x

 

[garysibio]

Please produce evidence - peer reviewed scientific papers by reputable scientists - that the preCambrian explosion in any way calls into question the fact of evolution.

You claim scientists are embarrassed. Please support the claim. Or that the debates between for example Gould and Morris in any way casts doubt on evolution and posits an alternative system for the development of life on earth.

Sarah x

Stat with the Behe book I mentioned.

 

[atheistgirl]

Stat with the Behe book I mentioned.

Here’s an excellent dismantling of Behe’s arguements by a biochemist:

cbs.dtu.dk/staff/dave/Behe.html

There are many places where, when the arguments presented can be put to the test, they fail miserably. For example, his insistence of the absence of literature about molecular evolution. This is easy to test, and see that what he is claiming is clearly wrong. This greatly reduces his integrity, in my opinion.

…The appeal to ignorance of the reader. Many things are said to support his arguments which are simply not true, but the intended reader would likely have no idea of this.

…Evidence against Behe’s view of irreducible complexity (and in favor of my utilitarian view) comes from an analysis of the regulatory proteins in different blood clotting systems. If the entire system is “irreducibly complex”, then one should see very nearly the same regulatory system in all animals. Perhaps it is not surprising that you don’t see this for the blood clotting cascade. In fact, very often you will find quite a bit of variation in “irreducibly complex” systems when you look at different organisms. But, Behe could well say, variation is one thing - origins of complexity is another. How could this complex system have evolved? Often nature will simply take what’s handy and use it. Take for example the substance that forms the crystal for the lens of the eye - this is nothing but a common enzyme that happens to have very nice crystallization properties - not necessarily a “tailor made” protein specifically (and ONLY) for this particular use (for a recent review of the lens crystallins, see J. Piatigorsky, Ann N Y Acad Sci, 842:7-15). In another example, a friend of mine had isolated the protein component of a complex which degrades RNA. She was surprised to find that one of the constituents was enolase - an enzyme used in metabolism, and having no previously known role in anything to do with RNA. (Py et al., Nature, 381:169-172, 1996) There are MANY examples of complicated systems which are constructed from components that themselves have perfectly viable roles as units in a completely different context. But please don’t take my word for it - have a look for yourself in the literature and see what you can find. I invite the reader interested in further exploring this to visit Russel Doolittle’s review of “DARWIN’S BLACK BOX”; he spends a good deal of time discussing Behe’s arguments about evolution blood clotting regulation.

Do you have evidence as you claimed evolutionary biologists are embarrassed by the preCambrian?

Please produce evidence - peer reviewed scientific papers by reputable scientists - that the preCambrian explosion in any way calls into question the fact of evolution.

You claim scientists are embarrassed. Please support the claim. Or that the debates between for example Gould and Morris in any way casts doubt on evolution and posits an alternative system for the development of life on earth.

Also worth noting - that book’s first edition came out 15 years ago, and the second edition 5 years ago. A lot has happened since then. But, my gosh, here’s what his peers think of it, and the fact some of his argumentation is unfalsifiable, which means its not even scientific!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin’s_Black_Box

Sarah x