Why didn't God save Neanderthals?

[grannymh]

John 14 tells us about the Holy Spirit teaching us. How can we be taught, if we refuse to let a little rain into the tent? Water helps us grow, right? There are 3, not 2, foundations of faith. There is Scripture, there is tradition, and there is personal experience.

Please accept my apology. Somehow I missed responding to your post 333 question “Water helps us grow, right?” followed by these two surprising sentences.
"There are 3, not 2, foundations of faith. There is Scripture, there is tradition, and there is personal experience. "

In my humble opinion, the topic appears to have shifted to personal faith.

In the sense of personal faith, “water” representing other people’s individual opinions is great for helping us grow in Catholicism because we can test other people’s individual opinions in relationship to all the doctrines in the Catholic Deposit of Faith. Our personal experiences are important. Fortunately, when one believes all the Catholic doctrines, one finds out that they work together to bring us to our ultimate goal which is happiness eternal in the presence of the Beatific Vision. All the Catholic doctrines are designed to help us reach heaven after our bodily death.

For example, the doctrine of two sole parents Adam and Eve assures each person that she or he has not been abandoned by God when the original friendship between humanity and Divinity was brutally shattered.

Here is where I wonder if I am misinterpreting these two unusual sentences from post 333.
"There are 3, not 2, foundations of faith. There is Scripture, there is tradition, and there is personal experience. "

My Catholic education did not teach that personal experience was a foundation for the Catholic Church. Unless, one is referring to Jesus Christ Who personally founded the Catholic Church.

My Catholic education did teach that Divine Revelation is the foundation for the Catholic Church. It is the major Catholic Church Councils, whose members searched Holy Scripture and Tradition for explanations, which duly defined and properly proclaimed all the Catholic doctrines.

Individual persons, by their personal experience, do not have the power to change Divine Revelation. That is why I am confused as to why anyone would propose “personal experience” as a foundation for faith.

 

[OneSheep]

Please accept my apology. Somehow I missed responding to your post 333 question “Water helps us grow, right?” followed by these two surprising sentences.
"There are 3, not 2, foundations of faith. There is Scripture, there is tradition, and there is personal experience. "

In my humble opinion, the topic appears to have shifted to personal faith.

Good Morning, Granny, I hope that you slept well!

Yes, since you are not wishing to give your latest opinion on Neanderthals, I might as well respond to this last (hopefully) comment on what I have posted.

In the sense of personal faith, “water” representing other people’s individual opinions is great for helping us grow in Catholicism because we can test other people’s individual opinions in relationship to all the doctrines in the Catholic Deposit of Faith. Our personal experiences are important.

As you may recall, even the very beginning of that last paragraph, the words “personal”, “faith”, “opinion” and “grow”, and probably all of the rest of the words are going to be defined very differently from one person to the next because of personal experiences with those words. For example, if a person went through his childhood hearing the word “Catholicism” associated with “hypocrisy”, he would have a very different idea of the word than you and I. He may still have a faith in Jesus, and in God, and he may even value some traditions, but his personal experience of God is different than ours, and it is his experience of love and scripture that will be the primary foundations of his faith.

Love, Granny, is not an intellectual thing. We do not learn love from a book, we learn Love from relationships. Thus, it is personal experience of love that remains a foundation of faith. It is much more difficult for a child that has gone through a lot of abuse from parents to comprehend the depth of the Love of God.

Fortunately, when one believes all the Catholic doctrines, one finds out that they work together to bring us to our ultimate goal which is happiness eternal in the presence of the Beatific Vision. All the Catholic doctrines are designed to help us reach heaven after our bodily death.

If you were to read Introduction to Christianity by Cardinal Ratzinger, one recurring theme is that salvation and Christianity is very little about “how one gets to heaven”. Salvation described by Jesus is a much more communal salvation, it is a saving of the world, a creation of the Kingdom on Earth. Appeal to an individual to have faith so that he can get into heaven, as a reason for faith, is an appeal to the most self-centered “benefit” of faith. Appeal to love one another and God is an appeal to create a loving community, to value God’s creation, to make the world a better place. There is a place for presenting to children “how one can get to heaven”. Adult spirituality is more in line with “how one can love people and God, creating the Kingdom”.

The “ultimate goal” is far from an individualistic thing.

Here is where I wonder if I am misinterpreting these two unusual sentences from post 333.
"There are 3, not 2, foundations of faith. There is Scripture, there is tradition, and there is personal experience. "

My Catholic education did not teach that personal experience was a foundation for the Catholic Church. Unless, one is referring to Jesus Christ Who personally founded the Catholic Church.

Faith is not a book, it is not an institution, it is a response to God. Personal experience will always play a huge role in our response to God. I understand your point too, though, one person’s experience is not a foundation of the Church. However, the saints, those that made decisions on the words of the CCC, those that wrote the Gospels and of course Saint Paul in all his letters all had personal experiences of Love that influenced their writings. We must believe that Love influences doctrine, or the doctrine is empty. Love is transmitted through people.

My Catholic education did teach that Divine Revelation is the foundation for the Catholic Church. It is the major Catholic Church Councils, whose members searched Holy Scripture and Tradition for explanations, which duly defined and properly proclaimed all the Catholic doctrines.

Individual persons, by their personal experience, do not have the power to change Divine Revelation. That is why I am confused as to why anyone would propose “personal experience” as a foundation for faith.

Divine Revelation unfolds through people. It is not doctrinal that the Spirit is limited to speaking to us in any particular way, like a special voice coming to a person sitting in front of a typewriter, writing the CCC. Rooms full of people discuss these matters, and those people have experiences in modern times, influenced by what the Spirit is telling them through personal experience, scripture, and nature.

“Thomas Aquinas believed in two types of revelation from God, general revelation and special revelation. In general revelation, God reveals himself through his creation, such that at least some truths about God can be learned by the empirical study of nature, physics, cosmology, etc. Special revelation is the knowledge of God and spiritual matters which can be discovered through supernatural means, such as scripture or miracles. Direct revelation refers to communication from God to someone in particular.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revelation

Science is a source of general revelation. Whether people receive revelation from scripture or from nature, Granny, it is experienced by people.

In those ways, it is personal experience that plays an enormous role in both revelation and faith.

Have a great day, Granny, I do hope you are well.

 

[grannymh]

Good Morning, Granny, I hope that you slept well!

Yes, since you are not wishing to give your latest opinion on Neanderthals, I might as well respond to this last (hopefully) comment on what I have posted.

Thank you.

As you may recall, even the very beginning of that last paragraph, the words “personal”, “faith”, “opinion” and “grow”, and probably all of the rest of the words are going to be defined very differently from one person to the next because of personal experiences with those words.

Correct.

For example, if a person went through his childhood hearing the word “Catholicism” associated with “hypocrisy”, he would have a very different idea of the word than you and I.

Correct.

He may still have a faith in Jesus, and in God, and he may even value some traditions, but his personal experience of God is different than ours, and it is his experience of love and scripture that will be the primary foundations of his faith.

Correct when one is speaking about his faith. I am not denying his faith and I am not defending his faith.

Love, Granny, is not an intellectual thing. We do not learn love from a book, we learn Love from relationships. Thus, it is personal experience of love that remains a foundation of faith.

Correct when one is speaking about personal experience of love. I am not denying personal experience of love and I am not defending personal experience of love.

It is much more difficult for a child that has gone through a lot of abuse from parents to comprehend the depth of the Love of God.

Correct when one is speaking about a child who has gone through a lot of abuse from parents. I am not denying a child who has gone through a lot of abuse from parents and I am not defending a child who has gone through a lot of abuse from parents.

If you were to read Introduction to Christianity by Cardinal Ratzinger, one recurring theme is that salvation and Christianity is very little about “how one gets to heaven”.

Correct when one is speaking about “his faith” and “personal experience of love” and “a child who has gone through a lot of abuse from parents”. I am not speaking about these things. I am defending the doctrines of the visible Catholic Church on earth.

Salvation described by Jesus is a much more communal salvation,

Correct. It is communal because all people are direct descendants of two sole founders of the human species aka the Catholic doctrine of a literal (real) Adam and Eve. The community of all humans is addressed in CCC 360. Please read *CCC *20-21 for the explanation of small print in *CCC *360.

it is a saving of the world, a creation of the Kingdom on Earth. Appeal to an individual to have faith so that he can get into heaven, as a reason for faith, is an appeal to the most self-centered “benefit” of faith. Appeal to love one another and God is an appeal to create a loving community, to value God’s creation, to make the world a better place. There is a place for presenting to children “how one can get to heaven”. Adult spirituality is more in line with “how one can love people and God, creating the Kingdom”.

The “ultimate goal” is far from an individualistic thing."

I can understand this as one of the many approaches to religion. I am not denying approaches to religion. I am not defending approaches to religion in general because my current emphasis is on defending the doctrines of the Catholic Church.

Faith is not a book, it is not an institution, it is a response to God.

This is a good explanation of the virtue of Faith. Thank you.

Personal experience will always play a huge role in our response to God. I understand your point too, though, one person’s experience is not a foundation of the Church. However, the saints, those that made decisions on the words of the CCC, those that wrote the Gospels and of course Saint Paul in all his letters all had personal experiences of Love that influenced their writings. We must believe that Love influences doctrine, or the doctrine is empty. Love is transmitted through people.

Naturally, saints, etc., had personal experiences of love which influenced their writings. However, one cannot confuse this with Divine Revelation which is transmitted through the doctrines of the Catholic Church. When one studies the CCC, one finds many writings of saints, etc. Please refer to the CCC Index of Citations beginning on page 689. In addition, CCC 20-21 explains that the use of small print in certain passages indicates observations of an historical or apologetic nature, or supplementary doctrinal explanations.

I have to take a break. Before I leave, I must point out that this sentence in post 340 contains a bit of “sleight of hand.”
“We must believe that Love influences doctrine, or the doctrine is empty.”

I am positive that our gentle readers noticed the omission of the fact of whose love. Some would notice that if the capital L indicated that it is God’s love, then the word influences is incorrect.

 

[OneSheep]

I can understand this as one of the many approaches to religion. I am not denying approaches to religion. I am not defending approaches to religion in general because my current emphasis is on defending the doctrines of the Catholic Church.

Dear Granny,

Yes, defending. Defending doctrines, Granny, is an approach.

Pope Francis, as previous Popes, call for a New Evangelism. If the face of our Church is one of defense, then who is interested in joining? Evangelism involves service, making a difference in the world, embracing community, embracing people, and despite differences, sharing the love.

As I learned in our latest diocesan workday, the first ministry is hospitality! Can you imagine entering a Church where the greeters are all standing there with defensive postures? No, Granny, we welcome people, we invite people. People come with their different ideas of faith and God and Jesus and Love and religion, etc., they come with their personal experiences. When they tell us of their personal experiences, is it our role as evangelists to sit there and tell them “warning!” “attack!” “not orthodox!” “if you do not believe this, go away!” etc.?

Instead, and I invite you to join me dear, we reach out to the world with open arms, as Jesus reaches to us. God’s posture is one of Love, reaching out, beckoning, inviting, not judging and defending. People come with a variety of personal experiences of the divine, and they are to be cherished.

And within the Church, too, we are to welcome one another with open arms. Dr. Bonnette, “Catholic teachers addressing evolution”, “Catholic authors” of all stripes are part of community and differences of “approach” or “opinion” etc. These can be defended one way or another, but at the end, (and I hope this is the end), we are all brothers and sisters in Christ, not scaring people away from one approach or another. This defensive approach leads to division and discord, not unity.

So, I accept your defensiveness, I understand, it’s okay. I also invite you to join me by in putting away such defensiveness and accept, and reach to people, from where they are standing.

Waaaiiit a minute…am I getting defensive about evangelism?

Oh well, like they say, if you can’t beat 'em, join 'em.

God Bless your day.

 

[davidv]

Dear Granny,

Yes, defending. Defending doctrines, Granny, is an approach.

Pope Francis, as previous Popes, call for a New Evangelism. If the face of our Church is one of defense, then who is interested in joining? Evangelism involves service, making a difference in the world, embracing community, embracing people, and despite differences, sharing the love.

As I learned in our latest diocesan workday, the first ministry is hospitality! Can you imagine entering a Church where the greeters are all standing there with defensive postures? No, Granny, we welcome people, we invite people. People come with their different ideas of faith and God and Jesus and Love and religion, etc., they come with their personal experiences. When they tell us of their personal experiences, is it our role as evangelists to sit there and tell them “warning!” “attack!” “not orthodox!” “if you do not believe this, go away!” etc.?

Instead, and I invite you to join me dear, we reach out to the world with open arms, as Jesus reaches to us. God’s posture is one of Love, reaching out, beckoning, inviting, not judging and defending. People come with a variety of personal experiences of the divine, and they are to be cherished.

And within the Church, too, we are to welcome one another with open arms. Dr. Bonnette, “Catholic teachers addressing evolution”, “Catholic authors” of all stripes are part of community and differences of “approach” or “opinion” etc. These can be defended one way or another, but at the end, (and I hope this is the end), we are all brothers and sisters in Christ, not scaring people away from one approach or another. This defensive approach leads to division and discord, not unity.

So, I accept your defensiveness, I understand, it’s okay. I also invite you to join me by in putting away such defensiveness and accept, and reach to people, from where they are standing.

Waaaiiit a minute…am I getting defensive about evangelism?

Oh well, like they say, if you can’t beat 'em, join 'em.

God Bless your day.

There is a time and place for everything.

In this forum particularly, defense is primary.

Any evangelism must be based on a firm foundation of Truth. If not, evangelism become a popularity contest. This is not what Popes had in mind for the new evangelization. The hard truth for those being evangelized is that they are being invited to begin the work of becoming sinless.

 

[OneSheep]

There is a time and place for everything.

In this forum particularly, defense is primary.

Any evangelism must be based on a firm foundation of Truth. If not, evangelism become a popularity contest. This is not what Popes had in mind for the new evangelization. The hard truth for those being evangelized is that they are being invited to begin the work of becoming sinless.

Agreed, David.

Keep in mind, though, that this thread was about Neanderthals. Is this really the place for “defense of Truth” from the standpoint of Catholic doctrine?

Those being evangelized, David, are called to embrace Love, to see the miracle of the incarnation, the Word, and to respond with faith. The first commandment is to love God and one another. All the rest falls into place.

If we cannot accept a variety of views concerning Neanderthals because we are so busy defending the faith from all the imaginable ramifications, we have missed the point. Such imagination, David, is engrossed in fear.

Join me, David, in embracing Neanderthals, the fearful, the confident, the opinionated, the open-minded, the closed-minded, and of course, the sinners.

God Bless.

 

[davidv]

Agreed, David.

Keep in mind, though, that this thread was about Neanderthals. Is this really the place for “defense of Truth” from the standpoint of Catholic doctrine?

Those being evangelized, David, are called to embrace Love, to see the miracle of the incarnation, the Word, and to respond with faith. The first commandment is to love God and one another. All the rest falls into place.

If we cannot accept a variety of views concerning Neanderthals because we are so busy defending the faith from all the imaginable ramifications, we have missed the point. Such imagination, David, is engrossed in fear.

Join me, David, in embracing Neanderthals, the fearful, the confident, the opinionated, the open-minded, the closed-minded, and of course, the sinners.

God Bless.

What’s to embrace? There is absolute no way, short of Divine Revelation, that we can know if what scientist’s call Neanderthals are human or not. Which makes the OP question essentially moot.

 

[grannymh]

Agreed, David.

Keep in mind, though, that this thread was about Neanderthals. Is this really the place for “defense of Truth” from the standpoint of Catholic doctrine?

This thread is about God and Neanderthals with the main discussion about whether or not Neanderthals meet the Catholic requirements for the human species.

Now, it should be obvious to our readers, that the Catholic requirements for the human species are contained in Catholic doctrines. When Catholic doctrines are sidestepped, there absolutely has to be a “defense of Truth.” Or are we to lie about the human species in order to be chummy with everyone who has their own opinion about which annoying Catholic doctrines should be ignored?

In post 345, David is correct in saying:
"There is absolute no way, short of Divine Revelation, that we can know if what scientist’s call Neanderthals are human or not. Which makes the OP question essentially moot. "
However, the “human is/human isn’t” discussion does take place in our scientific culture. This is why it is essential that Catholics defend the Truth especially when it comes to the origin and nature of our species which is covered by specific Catholic doctrines. Information source. CCC 355-366; Genesis 1: 26-27

The origin of our species preserves human nature as it is intended to be regardless of decomposing anatomy or anatomies if Neanderthals are actually human according to Catholic doctrines.

While I agree that the OP question is essentially moot, I find it interesting to discover how some Catholic doctrines, based on Divine Revelation, not human revelation, are put aside so that everyone can be friendly.

The first commandment does not say love God and destroy some of His Divine Revelation so that others will love us.

 

[grannymh]

There is a time and place for everything.

In this forum particularly, defense is primary.

Any evangelism must be based on a firm foundation of Truth. If not, evangelism become a popularity contest. This is not what Popes had in mind for the new evangelization. The hard truth for those being evangelized is that they are being invited to begin the work of becoming sinless.

 

[Hans_W]

…
5. With the help of the Spirit, we have the CCC. The CCC explains the scripture into the modern context. What is the difference between “sola scriptura” and “sola scriptura as explained by the CCC” if we are not continuing to explain our faith in the modern context, open to the Spirit’s voice from a multitude of sources?
…

(my emphasis)

That’s the point!
The CCC (or equivalent) will have looked very differently 500 years ago (before Galileo), or 200 years ago (before Darwin).

 

[Tomdstone]

Catholics here have argued that their pets will be in heaven with them. They cite various statements made to that effect by prominent members of the Catholic clergy. But if pets have immortal souls and will be in heaven, then why would not Neanderthals, who were much more advanced than most pets, have immortal souls also?

 

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by OneSheep forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
…
5. With the help of the Spirit, we have the CCC. The CCC explains the scripture into the modern context. What is the difference between “sola scriptura” and “sola scriptura as explained by the CCC” if we are not continuing to explain our faith in the modern context, open to the Spirit’s voice from a multitude of sources?

(my emphasis)

That’s the point!
The CCC (or equivalent) will have looked very differently 500 years ago (before Galileo), or 200 years ago (before Darwin).

Pardon me. I do not intend to be rude. But those two comments sound like God looked into His closet and was bored with His clothes so He went shopping.

 

[Hans_W]

Pardon me. I do not intend to be rude. But those two comments sound like God looked into His closet and was bored with His clothes so He went shopping.

From a spiritual point of view, nothing has changed over the last 2000 years.

But if you are concerned about the physical mechanism of us becoming human, then yes, things are different because we have discovered a lot in the last 200 years.

 

[grannymh]

Granny, dear, good morning.

1. With the help of the Spirit, we have the CCC. The CCC explains the scripture into the modern context. What is the difference between “sola scriptura” and “sola scriptura as explained by the CCC” if we are not continuing to explain our faith in the modern context, open to the Spirit’s voice from a multitude of sources?

Pardon me. I do not intend to be rude. It (emphasis mine) sounds like someone has forgotten that the Holy Spirit is the Third Person of the Most Holy Trinity. Does the Holy Spirit’s voice need (name removed by moderator)ut from a multitude of sources?

 

[afthomercy]

This thread is about God and Neanderthals with the main discussion about whether or not Neanderthals meet the Catholic requirements for the human species…

Now, it should be obvious to our readers, that the Catholic requirements for the human species are contained in Catholic doctrines…

The origin of our species preserves human nature as it is intended to be regardless of decomposing anatomy or anatomies if Neanderthals are actually human according to Catholic doctrines.

Thanks grannymh, for trying to bring the discussion back on track, and pointing us to the correct CCC paras.

CCC357 contains solid pointers for evaluating whether a soul qualifies to be recognised as a spiritual soul or not.

CCC357: “Being in the image of God the human individual possesses the dignity of a person, who is not just something, but someone. He is capable of self-knowledge, of self-possession and of freely giving himself and entering into communion with other persons. and he is called by grace to a covenant with his Creator, to offer him a response of faith and love that no other creature can give in his stead.”

Based on current level of knowledge about the neanderthal era, it is difficult to see them checking all of the above boxes. However, we can safely say that the neanderthals were a distinctly different race from us (although belonging to the same species). Now, if they somehow checked all the above boxes, it would mean that 2-classes of human persons had co-existed at some time in the distant past (it is an established scientific fact that the neanderthal and modern human era overlapped for a considerable length of time).

I at least, am not aware of anything in divine revelation which supports the concept of 2-kinds of human persons. Hence the quick conclusion is that A&E were modern humans and not neanderthals. However this brings up a problem: We carry neanderthal genes in our DNA. Humanis Generis forces us to believe that all those genes came through A&E only, but for that to be true, A&E would have to be pushed back to such a time in antiquity as would support the humungous diversity of genes found in the human race today (we have to take into account the rate of mutation and guesstimate the time slot in which a unique common ancestor would have lived who could have fathered all of us). Since the modern human race is not more than 200,000 years old, the question is whether 200,000 years is sufficient interval to support the diversity in human genes?. If not, then we would have to push A&E themselves into the neanderthal era, which brings up the problem of 2-human races.

I hope I have put the dilemma in focus!

 

[simpleas]

Wouldn’t genesis 6 have any meaning to two types of persons? Not revelation but it is in the scriptures.

 

[afthomercy]

CCC327 The profession of faith of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) affirms that God “from the beginning of time made at once (simul) out of nothing both orders of creatures, the spiritual and the corporeal, that is, the angelic and the earthly, and then (deinde) the human creature, who as it were shares in both orders, being composed of spirit and body.”

So it doesn’t give any opening for us to speculate on a plurality of human creature types.

• CCC343 Man is the summit of the Creator’s work, as the inspired account expresses by clearly distinguishing the creation of man from that of the other creatures.*

If man is the summit, then there can be no improvement upon him, but the modern humans are definitely an improvement upon the archaic humans!

 

[grannymh]

However this brings up a problem: We carry neanderthal genes in our DNA. Humanis Generis forces us to believe that all those genes came through A&E only, but for that to be true, A&E would have to be pushed back to such a time in antiquity as would support the humungous diversity of genes found in the human race today (we have to take into account the rate of mutation and guesstimate the time slot in which a unique common ancestor would have lived who could have fathered all of us). Since the modern human race is not more than 200,000 years old, the question is whether 200,000 years is sufficient interval to support the diversity in human genes?. If not, then we would have to push A&E themselves into the neanderthal era, which brings up the problem of 2-human races.

I hope I have put the dilemma in focus!

Thank you.

And I hope that this dilemma can be addressed by the simple fact that 15 children of the same two parents would not necessarily have mutations of the same chemical base pair. This means that descendants of those 15 children could have the beginning of different alleles of the original gene. Even if only one child had a mutation, there would be diversity because the descendants of the other 14 would not necessarily develop the same allele. As the human species population increased, the chances for new alleles of an original gene would also increase. Thus, leading to current diversity of a particular gene. Link to a simple definition of allele. dictionary.reference.com/browse/allele

Humani Generis does not really force us to believe that all those genes came through A&E only. This is because the human genome is in the material/physical realm. Genes do not change human nature per se. Whether we inherit the gene for red hair or inherit the gene for blonde hair does not change our spiritual soul.

Regarding sharing Neanderthal genes. We and the Neanderthals are vertebrates walking upright so naturally we will have similar genes. There is not a real problem of two ancient species having very similar anatomies. This is because archaic fossils are put into categories by scientists who examine available evidence going millions of years backwards. Currently, because of recent fossil finds, there is worldwide discussion about moving some of the fossils into a different species or not. The Catholic Church focuses on the spiritual soul as the ultimate factor in determining a human person.

Genes are material/physical. Genes are responsible for decomposing anatomies, some of which are very close to our own decomposing anatomy. That being the case, true humans could be similar biologically to non-human beings like Neanderthals. Being similar in bodily functions like propagation, there is the possibility of physical mating between a non-human being and a human being. This would be considered bestiality and morally wrong. However, rape would be a possibility which could account for the reception of some Neanderthal genes. We inherit gene versions from either our father or our mother so a Neanderthal gene could slip in. Or a gene just like a Neanderthal one could develop on its own in the descendants of one of the original children of Adam.

Please note that the above is strictly a possibility being discussed off CAF. Another possibility being discussed off CAF is the timing of Adam and Eve’s appearance on planet earth. Some folks are saying that the Neanderthals are direct descendants of Adam and Eve and thus they are human. But, as been pointed out, there are some serious concerns regarding actual rational spiritual souls in the Neanderthal species.

 

[afthomercy]

grannymh, you are right in saying that it is not necessary that ALL the genes that are present in mankind today came through A&E only, considering that the modern humans and the neanderthals co-existed for ten of thousands of years and there was cross breeding between the two races. However what we are forced to believe, thanks to Humanis Generis, is that there was a very severe and selective bottleneck in the human population around/post A&E’s lifetime, such that ONLY those individuals who had at least one Adamic gene in their DNA survived.

As regards the question of whether the neanderthals could have been true humans, we can safely answer in the negative, because as I posited earlier on this thread, it would imply the existance of 2-human races (neanderthals and modern humans), one superior to the other, and this is not supported by church doctrine. Further, if the anatomically modern human is the “summit of creation”, it means that all that which came before (specifically the neanderthals) were not “the summit” and hence were not true humans.

Interestingly, this also precludes the possibility of further evolution of man because if man evolved further, it would mean that the existing man is not “the summit” and that the soul has scope “to evolve”.

So is church doctrine really saying that although man may have evolved from “pre-existent and living matter”, the scope for further evolution is ruled out?

 

[grannymh]

grannymh, you are right in saying that it is not necessary that ALL the genes that are present in mankind today came through A&E only, considering that the modern humans and the neanderthals co-existed for ten of thousands of years and there was cross breeding between the two races. However what we are forced to believe, thanks to Humanis Generis, is that there was a very severe and selective bottleneck in the human population around/post A&E’s lifetime, such that ONLY those individuals who had at least one Adamic gene in their DNA survived.

I did not refer to all the genes present in mankind. I referred to the example of one individual particular gene with hundreds of versions which can account for genetic diversity. “This means that descendants of those 15 children could have the beginning of different alleles of the original gene.” Original gene is singular and not all the genes present in mankind.

Where, in Humani Genesis, are sentences which refer to a severe and selective bottleneck?
w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

As regards the question of whether the neanderthals could have been true humans, we can safely answer in the negative, because as I posited earlier on this thread, it would imply the existance of 2-human races (neanderthals and modern humans), one superior to the other, and this is not supported by church doctrine.Further, if the anatomically modern human is the “summit of creation”, it means that all that which came before (specifically the neanderthals) were not “the summit” and hence were not true humans.

Please note. My computer is having problems with the quote function.

In my neighborhood, “summit” on the material earth would be a creature whose nature is body and soul.

Interestingly, this also precludes the possibility of further evolution of man because if man evolved further, it would mean that the existing man is not “the summit” and that the soul has scope “to evolve”.

So is church doctrine really saying that although man may have evolved from “pre-existent and living matter”, the scope for further evolution is ruled out?

In Humani Generis, The hypothesis of “pre-existing and living matter” is presented by the “present state of human sciences” under the umbrella term “doctrine of evolution”. See paragraphs 35 and 36 for the context.

Paragraph 37 specifically addresses “origin” of humanity. It opposes the process of “polygenism.” From the science position, polygenism requires a large random breeding population in order to produce human beings (plural intended). From the position of the Catholic Church, the origin of all human beings took place in a population of two.