Why didn't God save Neanderthals?

[grannymh]

I am so fearful that if I would lose a few more pounds, I would be hiding under my bed.

The good news is that my trust in the forgotten Holy Spirit is growing so that I am gaining the courage to defend Catholicism. I accept and defend the literal reality of two first sole fully-complete original human parents biblically known as Adam and Eve.

Back to the subject of this thread.

If the Neanderthal population descended from Adam and Eve, they would be in the same position as persons living before the time of the Divine Jesus Christ.

The current natural science position declares that it is impossible for any species to solely descend from only two progenitors. Those familiar with science know that this basic tenet was considered solid evidence in 1995. Actually, the brilliant Pope Pius XII recognized that conflict with Catholicism in 1950.

Persons who trust the forgotten Holy Spirit are assured that they are descended from Adam and Eve. Therefore, there is no problem with declaring that our species is truly human. For general information. The wisdom of the promised Holy Spirit guides the major Ecumenical Church Councils.

The interpretations of science research demonstrated by the cladistics system declares that the Neanderthals did not descend from two original fully-complete Neanderthals. For general information. Each point on a cladogram is a major originating population larger than an originating population of two, that is, the literal first couple Adam and Eve.

Because the Catholic Church has only archaic fossils and nearby artifacts from the Neanderthal periods, early and later, it declines to dogmatically name material fossils as humans. Individuals are obviously free to present their findings from studying fossils and artifacts.

Individuals are also free to compare the visible evidence of actions of humans living in the Old Testament years with the Neanderthal years. I am thinking of pagan religious actions resulting in physical idols and structures. Humans are capable of building on knowledge. (pun intended)

Why didn’t God save the Neanderthals from extinction?

If Neanderthals were true humans descending from two human founders of humankind, then it is possible that eternal joy in heaven can follow their bodily death in the same way it happens today. Compared to being in the presence of the Beatific Vision, extinction is not a big deal. Unfortunately, Neanderthals wandered the earth before the endangered species list.

 

[OneSheep]

Here is the question.
“Are you requesting that all Catholics believe in the literal, not the figurative, creation story?”

I may be an old cranky granny, but I did not live at the beginning of the Catholic Church when the promised Holy Spirit came. It is the Holy Spirit Who guides the major ecumenical Church Councils when it is time to properly define doctrines based on Divine Revelation. Sorry, but the Holy Spirit, in His wisdom, has already guided the protocol for determining what is to be part of the Catholic Deposit of Faith. I do not have the power to change that.

Those who participate at the Sunday Holy Sacrifice of the Mass profess their belief in the Catholic doctrine based on Genesis 1:1 reference to the “creation story.” In other words, it would be a bit silly for me to request a particular belief about the creation story when the Holy Spirit has already taken care of that.

Yes, again Granny!

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. 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.

The Holy Spirit has guided us to acknowledge the significance of an original fault within a non-scientific scripture story that we are to read figuratively. One’s faith in Christ may rely on this figurative story, but it is not imperative that a Catholic believe in a literal Adam and Eve as the first genetic humans. That in itself would mean applying modern science to the story, and tying it all into our faith, which is not called for. It misses the point!

The point is not scientific, Dear!, it is spiritual! The inheritance that we receive from two original parents need not be a materially genetic inheritance., and you cannot bring forward any Church doctrine that says that requires us to believe that spiritual inheritance is genetic.

Now, finally, given the fact that I have said that your approach is acceptable, are you capable of humbling yourself to the point of admitting that what I said in the last paragraph is acceptable in the Church, can you avoid the slippery slopes and fears long enough to admit this? This is a yes or no question.

My prediction, if you follow your usual manner, is that you are not going to answer that question; why not surprise us for once?

I read a really great quote the other day from St. Thomas Aquinas: Life takes priority over doctrine. Life experience is our first guide! This is a very humble statement from a man whose life revolved around interpretation of the written word.

God Bless you, Granny, and for all the attempts to isolate yourself, you will always be in my “Big Tent”.

 

[simpleas]

I am so fearful that if I would lose a few more pounds, I would be hiding under my bed.

What I seek, which unfortunately is not always delivered, is some basic Catholic doctrines.

I really love this question. It is so indicative of a form of forgetfulness of the Holy Spirit. There are some Catholic doctrines regarding the Holy Spirit which should not be forgotten.
Here is the question.
“Are you requesting that all Catholics believe in the literal, not the figurative, creation story?”

I may be an old cranky granny, but I did not live at the beginning of the Catholic Church when the promised Holy Spirit came. It is the Holy Spirit Who guides the major ecumenical Church Councils when it is time to properly define doctrines based on Divine Revelation. Sorry, but the Holy Spirit, in His wisdom, has already guided the protocol for determining what is to be part of the Catholic Deposit of Faith. I do not have the power to change that.

Those who participate at the Sunday Holy Sacrifice of the Mass profess their belief in the Catholic doctrine based on Genesis 1:1 reference to the “creation story.” In other words, it would be a bit silly for me to request a particular belief about the creation story when the Holy Spirit has already taken care of that.

One of the important Catholic doctrines which Catholics should not forget is the promise of the Holy Spirit in chapter 14, Gospel of John. I do post that reference in other threads. I keep hoping that someone will remember to check it out.

Can I ask :

We profess to believing in God, creator of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen. How would considering evolution contradict professing belief in God as creator of ALL.

We don’t profess to believing in Adam and Eve, so as to single out that is where we decended from, we profess to belief in ALL that is seen and unseen.

Thanks.

 

[grannymh]

Can I ask :

We profess to believing in God, creator of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen. How would considering evolution contradict professing belief in God as creator of ALL.

I have explained many times what natural science teaches about species populations. An originating population of hundreds of indiscriminate random breeding beings is significantly different from the Catholic teaching that two individuals are the progenitors of the human species.

God created two specific founders of humankind. Two is two as far as I know.

 

[grannymh]

Yes, again Granny!

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. 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.

The Holy Spirit has guided us to acknowledge the significance of an original fault within a non-scientific scripture story that we are to read figuratively. One’s faith in Christ may rely on this figurative story, but it is not imperative that a Catholic believe in a literal Adam and Eve as the first genetic humans. That in itself would mean applying modern science to the story, and tying it all into our faith, which is not called for. It misses the point!

The point is not scientific, Dear!, it is spiritual! The inheritance that we receive from two original parents need not be a materially genetic inheritance., and you cannot bring forward any Church doctrine that says that requires us to believe that spiritual inheritance is genetic.

Now, finally, given the fact that I have said that your approach is acceptable, are you capable of humbling yourself to the point of admitting that what I said in the last paragraph is acceptable in the Church, can you avoid the slippery slopes and fears long enough to admit this? This is a yes or no question.

My prediction, if you follow your usual manner, is that you are not going to answer that question; why not surprise us for once?

I read a really great quote the other day from St. Thomas Aquinas: Life takes priority over doctrine. Life experience is our first guide! This is a very humble statement from a man whose life revolved around interpretation of the written word.

God Bless you, Granny, and for all the attempts to isolate yourself, you will always be in my “Big Tent”.

My dear Friend,

Rejoice and be Glad!

The Holy Spirit is responsible for the Catholic Deposit of Faith and not the “Big Tent” makers.

As for the challenge in post 28I…

I suggest reading paragraphs 355-421 in the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

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

Obviously, paragraph 390 which opens post 281 can be used in the Neanderthal discussion.

I expressed my thoughts about the topic in post 280. Unfortunately, Neanderthals wandered the earth before the endangered species list.

 

[simpleas]

I have explained many times what natural science teaches about species populations. An originating population of hundreds of indiscriminate random breeding beings is significantly different from the Catholic teaching that two individuals are the progenitors of the human species.

God created two specific founders of humankind. Two is two as far as I know.

Fair enough…

 

[OneSheep]

My dear Friend,

Rejoice and be Glad!

The Holy Spirit is responsible for the Catholic Deposit of Faith and not the “Big Tent” makers.

As for the challenge in post 28I…

I suggest reading paragraphs 355-421 in the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

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

Obviously, paragraph 390 which opens post 281 can be used in the Neanderthal discussion.

I expressed my thoughts about the topic in post 280. Unfortunately, Neanderthals wandered the earth before the endangered species list.

Granny!

I’m sorry, again I find nothing in that section of the CCC that refutes what I said in my last post to you.

And, as I predicted, you did not answer my question.

I love you, but you are incorrigible. The CCC is not on your side on this one Granny.

What I posted in 281 is refuted by you, but is not refuted by the CCC.

Enough. Off to work I go.

God Bless.

 

[davidv]

{snip
The point is not scientific, Dear!, it is spiritual! The inheritance that we receive from two original parents need not be a materially genetic inheritance., and you cannot bring forward any Church doctrine that says that requires us to believe that spiritual inheritance is genetic.{snip}

Church teaching is true. We are descendants of two, and only two original humans. This is not consistent with the more popular scientific hypotheses of human origin.

Since humans are not only material, nor only spiritual, the demarcation above is not meaningful.

365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body:234 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.

 

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by OneSheep forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*{snip *
The point is not scientific, Dear!, it is spiritual! The inheritance that we receive from two original parents need not be a materially genetic inheritance., and you cannot bring forward any Church doctrine that says that requires us to believe that spiritual inheritance is genetic.{snip}

Church teaching is true. We are descendants of two, and only two original humans. This is not consistent with the more popular scientific hypotheses of human origin.

Since humans are not only material, nor only spiritual, the demarcation above is not meaningful.

Originally Posted by CCC
365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body:234 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.

To davidv

from granny :flowers:
I am not in anyone’s Big Tent. I belong to the true Catholic Church.

Is being called incorrigible (post 286) a charitable remark?

 

[davidv]

Originally Posted by OneSheep forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*{snip *
*The point is not scientific, Dear!, it is spiritual! *The inheritance that we receive from two original parents need not be a materially genetic inheritance.**, and you cannot bring forward any Church doctrine that says that requires us to believe that spiritual inheritance is genetic.{snip}

To davidv

from granny :flowers:
I am not in anyone’s Big Tent. I belong to the true Catholic Church.

Is being called incorrigible (post 286) a charitable remark?

Those grasping the truth should be incorrigible.

Edit: Incorrigible: (of a person or their tendencies) not able to be corrected, improved, or reformed:

 

[OneSheep]

Church teaching is true. We are descendants of two, and only two original humans. This is not consistent with the more popular scientific hypotheses of human origin.

Since humans are not only material, nor only spiritual, the demarcation above is not meaningful.

Hi David,

The fact remains that the CCC does not refute the points I made in post 281, and they are meaningful because they allow theology to free itself from genomics, and vice versa.

But hey, never mind the ideas I present. You got flowers from Granny, and I got diddly squat.

I lose.:bighanky:

Have a great day.

 

[wmw]

Good point to bring up Isaac Newton. He was a brilliant mathematician and scientist. However, in his days science wasn’t yet a separate discipline. Everything fell under the umbrella of philosophy and what we today call “science” was known as “natural philosophy”.

Yes, in those days “scientists” invoked God when they couldn’t find a natural explanation anymore. But Newton made it clear that one should go as far as possible in trying to find natural causes for observed phenomena. He did a superb job in explaining the planetary movements by invoking an invisible (but natural) force emanating from the sun. In the end he thought that the whole system would be unstable and God would be required to “wind up” the solar system from time to time. His rival Gottfried Leibnitz in Germany was strongly opposed to this idea. He insisted that if God constructs something, it’s done perfectly and doesn’t need any correction.

All these people were deeply religious but recognised that if we want to understand how the world operates, we need to find natural causes and explanations. By the mid 19th century it became a generally accepted rule that science needs to limit itself to natural causes. This does not mean that there are no supernatural causes, but they don’t fall under the domain of science.

As any religious scientist will tell you, you can believe in a creator God but limit your work in science to natural explanations. It’s called methodological naturalism as opposed to ontological naturalism, which is the belief that there is nothing beyond our physical world.

Coming back to your first statement, how do you imagine capturing God’s “laws” in a scientific or mathematical language?

Methodological naturalism is functionally ontological naturalism. If you must continually think/work/talk/write in terms of naturalism there is no difference.

No, I have no new method of science with which to set them free. So I pray and doubt and expect it will go on as it has, for What is science to do? It is ever farther from gaining wisdom and guidance and to accept any philosophically sound reasoning in changing its methods. So, all I can connect to are the days past when science, let alone science and philosophically, was not so compartmentalized.

As far as your examples of theories using false supernatural explanations, the many cases where natural explanations rightfully won out, did and did so quickly as collection of data and new experiments allowed. There were no problems with this from the way science and philosophy were organised in the university. Yet, today thinking in terms of the supernatural explanations is strictly forbidden and that dogma of naturalism powerfully enforced.

All I’m saying is there should be more academic freedom and though I disagree in the theories of Intelligent Design. I do admire that they have to some extent carved out their own freedom, though at a horrible cost of academic and cultural isolation. They are in a sense of reputation the academic martyrs of our time. Though martyrs for a cause just off the mark.

 

[Hans_W]

Methodological naturalism is functionally ontological naturalism. If you must continually think/work/talk/write in terms of naturalism there is no difference.

I am just busy on a thesis stating that methodological naturalism does not entail ontological naturalism. I need to use 100,000 words - and you destroyed the whole thing with one sentence

As far as your examples of theories using false supernatural explanations, the many cases where natural explanations rightfully won out, did and did so quickly as collection of data and new experiments allowed. There were no problems with this from the way science and philosophy were organised in the university. Yet, today thinking in terms of the supernatural explanations is strictly forbidden and that dogma of naturalism powerfully enforced.

Supernatural explanations are not “strictly forbidden” in science, but simply don’t feature. You wouldn’t be happy if your car mechanic tells you that your car doesn’t start because it is possessed by an evil spirit. What would you say if your dentist tells you that a demon causes your toothache because he can’t see anything on the x-ray?

It is very normal to look for a natural explanation first. That’s what scientists do. And they are quite successful. As I said before, it does not prevent us in believing that there is a supernatural realm.

All I’m saying is there should be more academic freedom and though I disagree in the theories of Intelligent Design. I do admire that they have to some extent carved out their own freedom, though at a horrible cost of academic and cultural isolation. They are in a sense of reputation the academic martyrs of our time. Though martyrs for a cause just off the mark.

I also believe that the universe is intelligently designed, but you can’t turn this idea into a scientific theory. I would love to know why you disagree with ID but see them as academic martyrs. But that would need to go on another thread.

 

[grannymh]

Hi David,

The fact remains that the CCC does not refute the points I made in post 281, and they are meaningful because they allow theology to free itself from genomics, and vice versa.

But hey, never mind the ideas I present. You got flowers from Granny, and I got diddly squat.

I lose.:bighanky:

Have a great day.

For you, dear OneSheep. :flowers:
Some notes about Neanderthals and humans.

Enjoy the flowers while I explain the English in the truth filled paragraph, CCC 390. I prefer starting with some basic Catholic language. One might call that “church-speak.”

Paragraph 390 from the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition
I will be putting words and phrases in bold as a study guide regarding this thread.
**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. 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.

From a scientific approach to the Neanderthals, it is possible that archaic beings existed *at the beginning of the history of man. *From a biological view, fossils which walked upright could be considered as our human ancestors. Paleoanthropologists do have a sense of humor. In one of the media reports, a question was asked. Did the Neanderthals copy humans or did humans copy Neanderthals?

When the Catholic Church looks at the beginning of the history of man, there are some specific statements regarding “man.” For example. The first true human nature is an unique unification of both the material world of the Neanderthals and the spiritual world of God the Creator. Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1: 26-27 are literal truths.

Obviously, not every literal truth found in the Catholic Church can be contained in one single CCC paragraph such as CCC 390. Consequently, CCC 355 must also be studied in relationship to both humans and Neanderthals. Church-speak also includes footnotes such as 218 for CCC 355.

Homework is to study CCC 365 in davidv post 287

 

[OneSheep]

For you, dear OneSheep. :flowers:
Some notes about Neanderthals and humans.

Enjoy the flowers while I explain the English in the truth filled paragraph, CCC 390. I prefer starting with some basic Catholic language. One might call that “church-speak.”

Paragraph 390 from the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition
I will be putting words and phrases in bold as a study guide regarding this thread.
**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. 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.

From a scientific approach to the Neanderthals, it is possible that archaic beings existed at the beginning of the history of man. From a biological view, fossils which walked upright could be considered as our human ancestors. Paleoanthropologists do have a sense of humor. In one of the media reports, a question was asked. Did the Neanderthals copy humans or did humans copy Neanderthals?

When the Catholic Church looks at the beginning of the history of man, there are some specific statements regarding “man.” For example. The first true human nature is an unique unification of both the material world of the Neanderthals and the spiritual world of God the Creator. Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1: 26-27 are literal truths.

Obviously, not every literal truth found in the Catholic Church can be contained in one single CCC paragraph such as CCC 390. Consequently, CCC 355 must also be studied in relationship to both humans and Neanderthals. Church-speak also includes footnotes such as 218 for CCC 355.

Homework is to study CCC 365 in davidv post 287

Good Morning Gracious Granny, (You are so dear!)

Okay. I did my homework, but I confess I did not spend much time on it.

355 "God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them."218 Man occupies a unique place in creation: (I) he is “in the image of God”; (II) in his own nature he unites the spiritual and material worlds; (III) he is created “male and female”; (IV) God established him in his friendship.

365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body:234 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.

And paragraph 390 talks about “the beginning of the history of man”. What I am saying is that neither genomics or the fossil record will ever be able to discern when occurred the beginning of the history of man.

When did man gain a Spiritual Soul that makes us fully “human”? Does burying the dead give evidence to such? No, it just indicates a reverence, a connection to, the deceased. Elephants and dogs mourn the dead, and humans/pre-humans had more intelligence. Chimpanzees make tools and Capuchin monkeys have a compulsion for justice.

When did the history of man begin? Did it begin with a particular genetic configuration, with a particular mode of walking? With a particular capacity, and intelligence? We don’t know, Granny, a Spiritual Soul is much, much more than intelligence! A spiritual soul is, for one, having a capacity to have a relationship with our Creator, For some reason Creator wanted to have a relationship with His Creation.

Yes, the history of Man began with 2 humans, according to Genesis and the CCC. We do not know the genetic configuration or level of intelligence of those first 2 humans, but CCC 365 tells us that they were not human until they had a soul. We cannot “find” the soul, using the most modern science, in either the living or the dead.

Like I said, there is nothing in the CCC that refutes what I am saying here.

As for the flowers… You are such a sweetie!
:thankyou:

 

[opusAquinas]

We has two first parents. But how did their offspring create such diversity?

 

[wmw]

I am just busy on a thesis stating that methodological naturalism does not entail ontological naturalism. I need to use 100,000 words - and you destroyed the whole thing with one sentence

I’m sorry,It gets very tough when you no longer believe in your Thesis. Yet if you turned the whole paper around you are asking for a D or F. That is the lack of Freedom I’m talking about.

Supernatural explanations are not “strictly forbidden” in science, but simply don’t feature. You wouldn’t be happy if your car mechanic tells you that your car doesn’t start because it is possessed by an evil spirit. What would you say if your dentist tells you that a demon causes your toothache because he can’t see anything on the x-ray?

I agree that the evidence must meet a very high standard, but there must be a reasonable way to investigate miracles.

It is very normal to look for a natural explanation first. That’s what scientists do. And they are quite successful. As I said before, it does not prevent us in believing that there is a supernatural realm.

I agree, but we are talking about one of the few possible exceptions that the human species was founded by two.

I also believe that the universe is intelligently designed, but you can’t turn this idea into a scientific theory. I would love to know why you disagree with ID but see them as academic martyrs. But that would need to go on another thread.

When you say it in a colloquial way it is quite reasonable. Still, the Catholic approach is as you quoted Gottfried Leibnitz, “if God constructs something, it’s done perfectly and doesn’t need any correction”; so, if we have a natural unfolding of creation from the Initial Big Bang this is to be expected. Yet, Adam&Eve, Mary, Jesus, maybe Enoch these are the exceptions where God acted, & not from the initial Big Bang.

 

[grannymh]

We has two first parents. But how did their offspring create such diversity?

Ordinary gene mutations usually in the immune system which changes according to pathogens.

 

[grannymh]

Good Morning Gracious Granny, (You are so dear!)

Okay. I did my homework, but I confess I did not spend much time on it.

355 "God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them."218 Man occupies a unique place in creation: (I) he is “in the image of God”; (II) in his own nature he unites the spiritual and material worlds; (III) he is created “male and female”; (IV) God established him in his friendship.

365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body:234 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.

And paragraph 390 talks about “the beginning of the history of man”. What I am saying is that neither genomics or the fossil record will ever be able to discern when occurred the beginning of the history of man.

When did man gain a Spiritual Soul that makes us fully “human”? Does burying the dead give evidence to such? No, it just indicates a reverence, a connection to, the deceased. Elephants and dogs mourn the dead, and humans/pre-humans had more intelligence. Chimpanzees make tools and Capuchin monkeys have a compulsion for justice.

When did the history of man begin? Did it begin with a particular genetic configuration, with a particular mode of walking? With a particular capacity, and intelligence? We don’t know, Granny, a Spiritual Soul is much, much more than intelligence! A spiritual soul is, for one, having a capacity to have a relationship with our Creator, For some reason Creator wanted to have a relationship with His Creation.

Yes, the history of Man began with 2 humans, according to Genesis and the CCC. We do not know the genetic configuration or level of intelligence of those first 2 humans, but CCC 365 tells us that they were not human until they had a soul. We cannot “find” the soul, using the most modern science, in either the living or the dead.

Like I said, there is nothing in the CCC that refutes what I am saying here.

As for the flowers… You are such a sweetie!
:thankyou:

Glad you liked them.

This evening’s discussion is on the comment below from post 294. It definitely needs some creative correction work on words in bold.

Yes, the history of Man began with 2 humans, according to Genesis and the CCC. We do not know the genetic configuration or level of intelligence of those first 2 humans, but CCC 365 tells us that they were not human until they had a soul. We cannot “find” the soul, using the most modern science, in either the living or the dead.

Yes, Church-speak, especially* CCC* 365, above, needs extremely slow reading.

The first two words of *CCC *365 above are The unity The word union is at the end of the paragraph. but rather their union forms a single nature.

This interpretation from post 294, in bold, needs close examination.
"We do not know the genetic configuration or level of intelligence of those first 2 humans, but CCC 365 tells us that they were not human until they had a soul."
First it says “those first 2 humans” and then it explains that they were not human
until they had a *soul. *What is happening here is that the human person anatomy is separate from the soul. According to this error, there is human blood and guts, skin and bones, bouncing around on earth waiting to gain a super soul to make a fully human person.

As I pointed out, the emphasis of CCC 365 is on unity, not separation.
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.

Matter is matter until it is animated by a God-created rational spiritual soul. The human person has one instantly complete human nature; not two natures with one waiting for the other.

CCC 365 needs a proper understanding. A good way to do this is to read surrounding paragraphs such as *CCC *364 and 366.

Obviously, *CCC 364, *365, 366, refute the science theory that human soul-like
characteristics developed as part the anatomical progress taking place as the brains of hominins increased in size waiting for rational intellective tools to evolve. (soul in church-speak).

Philosophically speaking. CCC 364, 365, 356 refutes Cartesian dualism.

Perhaps, your original comment …
"We do not know the genetic configuration or level of intelligence of those first 2 humans, but CCC 365 tells us that they were not human until they had a soul."

… accidentally left out some words. That often happens with me. Nonetheless, your comment implies a serious misunderstanding of CCC 365.

Note:
The history of man begins with the first human person, Adam. This is a Catholic teaching. The exact day and year when Adam appeared is not a Catholic teaching.

Homework is to study CCC 1730-1732.

 

[grannymh]

We has two first parents. But how did their offspring create such diversity?

I am not sure which diversity you are referring to. If it is genetic diversity – that is due to normal gene mutations which usually occur in the immune system in response to pathogens. “Genetic diversity” is a basic routine in the human species when considering the number of chemical base pairs in the human genome.

Links to the Human Genome Project. Or Google Human Genome Project.

genome.gov/10001772

genome.gov/Pages/Education/AllAbouttheHumanGenomeProject/GuidetoYourGenome07_vs2.pdf

ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/hgp

God is an amazing Creator.