Why didn't God save Neanderthals?

[Aloysium]

. . . Luke 23:34
34 Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”[a] And they divided up his clothes by casting lots.

Either Jesus was wrong, or they did not know what they were doing. . . .

. . . or your understanding of sin, repentence, forgiveness, judgement and mercy may be incomplete.

Consider:

Acts 2:36 - ‘For this reason the whole House of Israel can be certain that the Lord and Christ whom God has made is this Jesus whom you crucified.’ Hearing this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, ‘What are we to do, brothers?’ ‘You must repent,’ Peter answered, ‘and every one of you must be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise that was made is for you and your children, and for all those who are far away, for all those whom the Lord our God is calling to himself.’ He spoke to them for a long time using many other arguments, and he urged them, ‘Save yourselves from this perverse generation.’

It is of utmost importance to acknowledge where we have done wrong! We must repent of our sins!
Or, we can run forever away from who we are and what we have done, away from the truth and God’s redeeming love.

To stay on the rails: regarding H. neaderthalis, I have no opinion as to their humanity.
In a long buried post I wondered, tongue-in-cheek I suppose, whether Adam and Eve were lemurs.
There are as many scenarios whereby God could have moulded the earth into our two original parents, as one’s imagination allows.
The essential facts are in Genesis; the details remain for science, hoping it remains focussed on the truth, to elucidate.
Or not, we may not have been meant to know in this world.

 

[ajecphotos]

The bible doesnt hold all the answers. Lots and lots of gaps!

I am sure my Mother-In-Law was a Neanderthal

 

[Ridgerunner]

Cahokia Mound sounds familiar. Is that in Illinois or Missouri? If you have citations, would you please get them to me.

They’re in Illinois, right across the river from St. Louis. There are various sites on them, but here’s one. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cahokia

Nobody knows for sure who the people were. They disappeared before the first white explorers reached the spot.

 

[wmw]

Hi wmw,
I just wanted to pop in and make a point about mathematics. The thing we all learn in middle and high school where the minimum distance between two points is a line- this is called Euclidean geometry. In Euclidean geometry, we assume that space must be flat. In the general theory of relativity, we instead use Rienmannian geometry, which allows for curved space.
All math starts from axioms, which we assume are true for the sake of argument. Math can never actually tell us whether an axiom is true in our universe, we just look around and see if the results of our axioms look right in the real world. This is how we can have two forms of math with axioms that contradict each other: both Euclidean and Rienmannian are just big if’s, and they draw from different if’s. When they hold contradictory conclusions, it’s no surprise, and it certainly doesn’t mean that math itself is flawed.

I didn’t say “flawed”, but the idea that any number of these geometries or sets of axioms can be replaced shows that they are not an absolute truth unto themselves. I agree that they are a language of man’s and a tool of precise description that is quite elegant. It’s just not infallible and statements that says something to the effect of “God speaks in mathematics” is putting God down to the level of comparison to man and claiming far too much of mathematics.

 

[Tomdstone]

… the idea that any number of these geometries or sets of axioms can be replaced shows that they are not an absolute truth unto themselves.

Not true. The truths that these geometries give are absolute truths in their respective realm of application. For example, in Euclidean geometry, it is absolutely true that the base angles of an isosceles triangle are equal. This is absolutely true in Euclidean geometry and if you don’t believe it, give us a counterexample.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Evening Granny,

My apology, but I do not readily recall discussing “genomic evidence for Neanderthals being human.” That is because I find that there is more evidence in archaic artifacts. Actually, off CAF, I have expressed disagreement with some of the interpretations of these artifacts.

I think I am starting to understand your position. If you are thinking that archaic artifacts come anywhere close to the positive evidence shown by genomics, then you simply do not understand the modern science of genomics. Artifacts help, but are not definitive. Do you understand the significance of a gene sequence? Do you understand the difference between “gene sequence” and “genetic material”? Do you know what a “genetic marker” is? All of these terms are key to understanding the science.

Perhaps this article will help:

discovermagazine.com/2013/march/14-interbreeding-neanderthals

The article also explains how the researchers came upon evidence of yet another race, the “Denisovans”, also previously mentioned in this thread, that had also added to the Sapiens sapiens gene pool, but “disappeared” as a distinct race more recently than the Neanderthals. Neanderthal genes are found in “billions” of Europeans and Asians, but not in Africans (generally speaking), which gives evidence that there was little back-migration to Africa.

Briefly, I do reject the interpretation of the genomic evidence in Francisco Ayala’s 1995 bombshell. This is based on a published review of the literature by another scientist. Refer to the chapters by Dr. Ann Gauger in the book Science & Human Origins amazon.com/Science-Human-Origins-Ann-Gauger/dp/193659904X

There was no genomic evidence in terms of gene sequencing in 1995, Granny. The genome of modern humans was not sequenced (completed) until 2007, and Neanderthals not until 2010 or 2011. I have no idea what you are referring to.

I consider all people as worthy of profound respect.

That is wonderful, but my question was:

As I accept your rejection of the science, are you capable of accepting that I and many Catholics find truth in the science, and that such seeing is not contrary to Catholic teachings?

And you have still not answered the question. The sad thing is, and now think I am understanding you better, you were making judgments about something you apparently do not understand. Perhaps if you read the article you will get a better understanding. Try to read the Discover article objectively, without being quick to judge that something in it conflicts with Catholicism.

I think, at this point, I am going to make the assumption that your answer to my question is “no”, since you seem to be avoiding direct answers. No, you cannot accept that Catholics find truth in the science, and that such seeing is not contrary to Catholic teachings. Am I assuming correctly?

God Bless, Granny, and do read the article, it is very well written.

 

[opusAquinas]

The value of relevance of this question is like asking “why didn’t God save the dinosaurs?”

 

[grannymh]

And you have still not answered the question. The sad thing is, and now think I am understanding you better, you were making judgments about something you apparently do not understand. Perhaps if you read the article you will get a better understanding. Try to read the Discover article objectively, without being quick to judge that something in it conflicts with Catholicism.

What is not in the Discover article is the primary position of natural science in regard to the actual origin of humankind. The reason is that this position has been in place for decades; therefore, it is considered common knowledge. Because Pope Pius XII understood the basics, his encyclical Humani Generis was published in 1950. It is still the standard Catholic approach to the contemporary science of human origin.

Because it is assumed that the general public understands the basic evolution model, there was no need for the author to mention Catholicism.

I think, at this point, I am going to make the assumption that your answer to my question is “no”, since you seem to be avoiding direct answers. No, you cannot accept that Catholics find truth in the science, and that such seeing is not contrary to Catholic teachings. Am I assuming correctly?

As someone familiar with the evolution model, I know the difference between plants and ants and my human ancestors. Thus, I do not make broad statements about “truth” in science because the interpretation of what is scientific “truth” is individually based on the presented evidence and the methods used to examine the evidence.

If you wish, you can make many broad statements about my knowledge. But those statements do not change the natural science position on the origin of the human species.

You may assume anything you wish about me. That does not change the Catholic position that humankind descended from a population of two. By the way, the originating human population of two is directly opposed to the population of thousands which is the foundation of the current evolution model.

In search of peace on this thread, I now decline to answer your current question and the previous questions.

When there is a proper question about Catholic Church teachings, which do not change with the wind, I will answer.

Those people who have a serious question about science should contact me privately.

 

[Aloysium]

. . .Do you understand the significance of a gene sequence? Do you understand the difference between “gene sequence” and “genetic material”? Do you know what a “genetic marker” is? All of these terms are key to understanding the science. . . I and many Catholics find truth in the science, and that such seeing is not contrary to Catholic teachings . . …

I’m positive that the vast majority of Catholics see no contradiction in holding to revealed truth as interpreted by the Church and good science.

Of concern to me when definitive conclusions are presented in the media, are a number of issues that are unstated and unclear. Since you seem to be up on such matters, perhaps you can clarify:
How in your understanding does one determine that a gene sequence is due to interbreeding vs its presence due to a common progenitor?
With respect to the genetic clock, a concept which provides a way of estimating time-lines regarding changes in the genome, what sorts of factors are considered and how are they weighted?
You identify yourself as a Catholic; in your view could God intervene to cause genetic variation among very few individuals to promote diversity, making it appear that there existed a larger group, using calculations based on current rates of genomic change?

Sorry for the long perhaps complicated question; I trust that you understand what I’m getting at. Thanks.

 

[OneSheep]

The value of relevance of this question is like asking “why didn’t God save the dinosaurs?”

I agree, opusAquinas.

What is at issue is that some Catholics, when they look at anything having to do with origin of species, they sense that the entire faith is being threatened. They can be very intolerant of scientific results, because they fear that there is a “slippery slope” that people will no longer believe in Christianity, that truth is “polluted” etc., which is essentially the same reaction people had to the revelation that the Earth travels around the sun. (what!? the Earth not the center of the universe?)

Literalists still believe that the universe was created in 6 days and so forth, and that belief is very important to them, because their faith depends on an “unchanging and irrefutable” document, the Bible.

I can accept the literalist position, but it is a disservice to uneducated Catholics to claim that it is the Church’s position to disregard the science regarding origin of species, and in this case, the humanity of Neanderthals.

Thanks

 

[opusAquinas]

I agree, opusAquinas.

What is at issue is that some Catholics, when they look at anything having to do with origin of species, they sense that the entire faith is being threatened. They can be very intolerant of scientific results, because they fear that there is a “slippery slope” that people will no longer believe in Christianity, that truth is “polluted” etc., which is essentially the same reaction people had to the revelation that the Earth travels around the sun. (what!? the Earth not the center of the universe?)

Literalists still believe that the universe was created in 6 days and so forth, and that belief is very important to them, because their faith depends on an “unchanging and irrefutable” document, the Bible.

I can accept the literalist position, but it is a disservice to uneducated Catholics to claim that it is the Church’s position to disregard the science regarding origin of species, and in this case, the humanity of Neanderthals.

Thanks

Yes and they were not human beings. They had no souls. Or they had souls now they are all in heaven. They never FELL so there was no sin in them so they were perfect like Adam and Eve BEFORE the Fall.

 

[OneSheep]

I’m positive that the vast majority of Catholics see no contradiction in holding to revealed truth as interpreted by the Church and good science.

Of concern to me when definitive conclusions are presented in the media, are a number of issues that are unstated and unclear. Since you seem to be up on such matters, perhaps you can clarify:
How in your understanding does one determine that a gene sequence is due to interbreeding vs its presence due to a common progenitor?

Good morning,

In this case, Africans do not carry the DNA determined as Neanderthal. This indicates, but is not positively conclusive, that the DNA was not carried by a progenitor that left Africa, and then populations divided. Researchers say that evidence is being gathered that indicates Sapiens sapiens contemporaries did not carry the Neanderthal genetic markers. It could go one way or another, and will never be 100%. Science is based on theories, for the most part. Anything can happen.

With respect to the genetic clock, a concept which provides a way of estimating time-lines regarding changes in the genome, what sorts of factors are considered and how are they weighted?

I am not an expert, but the rates of mutation are fairly constant in populations. Mitochondrial DNA is compared with nuclear DNA also.

You identify yourself as a Catholic; in your view could God intervene to cause genetic variation among very few individuals to promote diversity, making it appear that there existed a larger group, using calculations based on current rates of genomic change?

Absolutely! This is a means by which a Catholic whose faith is threatened by the science can ignore the science. I am hoping, however, that people on both sides of the issue can accept the opposite point of view, and not say that only “their side” is the only Catholic one.

Sorry for the long perhaps complicated question; I trust that you understand what I’m getting at. Thanks.

Thank you for your gentle questions. Yes, “good science” has the humility to admit that a theory is a theory, and God cannot be ruled out because there is no proof of the negative. “Good religion” has the humility to admit that science reveals much about creation, and does not take offense when preconceived material notions are challenged, but instead focuses on spiritual meaning of existence.

Thanks, Aloysium.

 

[grannymh]

My friend OneSheep,
While I am waiting for your reply to post 230 …

Hopefully, you will not mind if I make a few comments.

I agree, opusAquinas.

What is at issue is that some Catholics, when they look at anything having to do with origin of species, they sense that the entire faith is being threatened. They can be very intolerant of scientific results, because they fear that there is a “slippery slope” that people will no longer believe in Christianity, that truth is “polluted” etc., which is essentially the same reaction people had to the revelation that the Earth travels around the sun. (what!? the Earth not the center of the universe?)

What is at issue is that some Catholics, when they look at anything having to do with origin of species, they sense that the entire faith is being threatened.

In the wide world of Catholicism, it is true that the Catholic Faith is being threatened. A close at hand example is the modern version of the Arian heresy.

They can be very intolerant of scientific results, because they fear that there is a “slippery slope” that people will no longer believe in Christianity,

I can easily agree that there are intolerant people in the world. That is exactly why today’s Catholics need to have some awareness of what is currently happening in the science of human origin. Please refer to post 230.

that truth is “polluted” etc., which is essentially the same reaction people had to the revelation that the Earth travels around the sun. (what!? the Earth not the center of the universe?)

This is a difficult statement simply because of the zillion of truths presented on CAF. However, I do agree with your example. Thank you for presenting it.

****** I see that you have posted post 233 as an answer to post 230. Consequently, I will stop here and give everyone a chance to catch up with this valuable thread.

In the meantime, here are links to two articles which approach some of the scientific aspects.

crisismagazine.com/2014/did-adam-and-eve-really-exist

hprweb.com/2014/07/time-to-abandon-the-genesis-story/

Here is a fascinating book for your reading pleasure.

amazon.com/Origin-Human-Species-Third-Edition/dp/1932589686/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1412467670&sr=1-1-catcorr&keywords=Origin+of+the+human+species++Bonnette

Enjoy the above information.

 

[The_Serpent]

ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins/strange-rituals-or-cannibalism-neanderthals-020297

Interesting article speculates on possible cannibalism.

 

[simpleas]

ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins/strange-rituals-or-cannibalism-neanderthals-020297

Interesting article speculates on possible cannibalism.

Yes interesting, what of the people alive today that carry out the same or similar rituals, and have yet to hear of christanity, they have souls do they not? Also the mayans they were people, but they carried out some pretty inhumane practises, yet they had souls before they adopted christanity. The neanderthal look human, share dna, had similar practises to humans as we know them, yes some animals Bury their dead too, but has any none human animal made fire?

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Africans do not carry the DNA determined as Neanderthal. This indicates, but is not positively conclusive, that the DNA was not carried by a progenitor that left Africa, and then populations divided. Researchers say that evidence is being gathered that indicates Sapiens sapiens contemporaries did not carry the Neanderthal genetic markers. It could go one way or another, and will never be 100%. Science is based on theories, for the most part. Anything can happen. . . .

Butterflies have flown;
Caterpillars search the dust
For ancient cocoons.

Dust to dust, and in what remains we look for ourselves, imagining who we were.

Like yourself, I am an amateur in this area of science. I have not collected the raw data: I do not know much of the theories, statistical methods and technology that translate matter into information, which is then moulded into scientific understanding.

When you say that "This indicates, but is not positively conclusive, that the DNA was not carried by a progenitor that left Africa. . . " That view is based on the assumption that those genes would have been spread in a rather homogenous manner among a fairly large group of “hominids”. Not considered would be a genetically diverse smaller group of families, one of which could have carried those genes, now considered Neanderthal, but which may have been part of the genetic make-up of the original pair. In this case, those genes would have been lost/changed in a growing genetic diversity which permitted closely related beings to have sound offspring.

I may not be making my point, but what I would wish to assert is that what researchers do, is to find ways to put the jigsaw puzzle together, reflecting their assumptions and add to existing theories.

If I may posit a senario, among the many that imagination conjures:
There were two individuals, who became many very quickly.
In order to sustain this growth in population, there was a nonrandom emergence of genetic diversity.
What we call Neanderthal genes now found in human beings were actually originally present in man, but disappeared during an initial accelerated change in the human genome.
Those genes perhaps are related to a hardiness found in Neanderthals that suited a particular family or tribe of humans to flourish in Europe. That is why they remain. They are not particularly Neanderthal.
It would not be new to science, to find that something that seems valid is later found to be otherwise. It could even turn out to be that perhaps the designation of Neanderthal is an artifact.

Given the reality of human existence as it manifests itself in life, I will stick with scripture as it reveals so much more about who we are and why we are.

 

[opusAquinas]

Yes interesting, what of the people alive today that carry out the same or similar rituals, and have yet to hear of christanity, they have souls do they not? Also the mayans they were people, but they carried out some pretty inhumane practises, yet they had souls before they adopted christanity. The neanderthal look human, share dna, had similar practises to humans as we know them, yes some animals Bury their dead too, but has any none human animal made fire?

Yes neaderthals had souls because they made fire?

Were their first parents tempted by the devil and failed?

So they were under the dominion of the devil?

But they were so close to us? What about form and substance?

 

[grannymh]

Yes neaderthals had souls because they made fire?

Were their first parents tempted by the devil and failed?

So they were under the dominion of the devil?

But they were so close to us? What about form and substance?

Form and substance? Great philosophical question!

Do check out links in post 232.

 

[OneSheep]

Butterflies have flown;
Caterpillars search the dust
For ancient cocoons.

Dust to dust, and in what remains we look for ourselves, imagining who we were.

Like yourself, I am an amateur in this area of science. I have not collected the raw data: I do not know much of the theories, statistical methods and technology that translate matter into information, which is then moulded into scientific understanding.

When you say that "This indicates, but is not positively conclusive, that the DNA was not carried by a progenitor that left Africa. . . " That view is based on the assumption that those genes would have been spread in a rather homogenous manner among a fairly large group of “hominids”. Not considered would be a genetically diverse smaller group of families, one of which could have carried those genes, now considered Neanderthal, but which may have been part of the genetic make-up of the original pair. In this case, those genes would have been lost/changed in a growing genetic diversity which permitted closely related beings to have sound offspring.

I may not be making my point, but what I would wish to assert is that what researchers do, is to find ways to put the jigsaw puzzle together, reflecting their assumptions and add to existing theories.

If I may posit a senario, among the many that imagination conjures:
There were two individuals, who became many very quickly.
In order to sustain this growth in population, there was a nonrandom emergence of genetic diversity.
What we call Neanderthal genes now found in human beings were actually originally present in man, but disappeared during an initial accelerated change in the human genome.

Hi Aloysium,

This “disappearance” would have to involve some “supernatural” occurrence, but that is okay, your scenario could take place with divine “supernatural” action. It works!

Those genes perhaps are related to a hardiness found in Neanderthals that suited a particular family or tribe of humans to flourish in Europe. That is why they remain. They are not particularly Neanderthal.
It would not be new to science, to find that something that seems valid is later found to be otherwise. It could even turn out to be that perhaps the designation of Neanderthal is an artifact

.

So, yes, only the “disappearance” part is difficult to prove, and I don’t know if it will end up being “statistically” possible, but who of faith would limit God to the statistically possible?

Given the reality of human existence as it manifests itself in life, I will stick with scripture as it reveals so much more about who we are and why we are.

Consider this, Aloysium: Why do people of faith or even scientists limit the entire idea of “inheritance” to the genetic? Is there something that is transferred from parents to offspring that is not in the DNA? Indeed, is there something about being human that is transferred, even inherited from one adult to another? If that is the case, even if there were a long time ago a large population of individuals of the human genome, two individuals, Adam and Eve, could have been the first to have a different quality that cannot be determined today because we no longer have examples of the population without this quality. It could be, as I said before, the capacity for having a relationship with God. It could be something more. Who knows? Anyway, this capacity may have been transferred by a non-genetic means and it continue to take place today non-genetically.

It does not hurt to think out-of-the-box, right?

Thanks for your response. Keep it up! I find your version to be completely acceptable.

 

[grannymh]

Hi Aloysium,

This “disappearance” would have to involve some “supernatural” occurrence, but that is okay, your scenario could take place with divine “supernatural” action. It works!

.

So, yes, only the “disappearance” part is difficult to prove, and I don’t know if it will end up being “statistically” possible, but who of faith would limit God to the statistically possible?

Consider this, Aloysium: Why do people of faith or even scientists limit the entire idea of “inheritance” to the genetic? Is there something that is transferred from parents to offspring that is not in the DNA? Indeed, is there something about being human that is transferred, even inherited from one adult to another? If that is the case, even if there were a long time ago a large population of individuals of the human genome, two individuals, Adam and Eve, could have been the first to have a different quality that cannot be determined today because we no longer have examples of the population without this quality. It could be, as I said before, the capacity for having a relationship with God. It could be something more. Who knows? Anyway, this capacity may have been transferred by a non-genetic means and it continue to take place today non-genetically.

It does not hurt to think out-of-the-box, right?

Thanks for your response. Keep it up! I find your version to be completely acceptable.

Personally, I prefer to think in-the-box of Catholic doctrines.

Catholic doctrines are so common sense once one discovers that God as Creator interacted with His human creatures.

God interacted with humans right from the dawn of human history.

Genesis 1: 26-28.

Maybe “living things” refers to Neanderthals. That is the question.