Why didn't God save Neanderthals?

[grannymh]

Continuation from post 358.

My computer is in a very bad mood. I am not sure how long I will be able to post.

Clarification of this sentence from post 356.
“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.”
This refers to the encyclical Humani Generis itself. It is also true that Humani Generis does not really force us to believe that some of the genes came from a non-human rape.

The point I was hoping to make is that we have to be very careful about interpretations. Humani Generis specifically ruled on one point which is the originating human population is a population of two, Adam and Eve.

And Because post 353 mentioned the problem of the diversity in human genes, I added two examples of how the diversity of versions (alleles) of an individual gene could happen. This was not part of* Humani Generis*.

Here are two links which include a brief survey of scientific literature. They are examples, not doctrines.

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

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

Interesting website
drbonnette.com/

 

[OneSheep]

Hello, Hans W,

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

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.

Yes, the doctrines of the Church are clarified to address the discoveries and “unfolding revelations” of any particular time period. So, yes, if there were a CCC 1500 years ago, it would read quite differently.

Spiritually speaking, nothing has changed? In terms of the human capacity for love and relationship with God, I agree. However, I do believe that human awareness concerning the human condition, what love is, just awareness in general, has greatly increased over the years. We have to take the wrong paths, as a species, then learn that it is wrong, and then take the right paths.

For instance, it has taken a long time for our laws here in America to adjust to the notion that we are all humans of equal importance. This adjustment reflects a change in awareness, a change in Spirituality. Does it indicate a genetic change? No, but changes in the direction of greater awareness are much more significant than changes in genetics.

I think that you see what I mean. Thanks.

 

[OneSheep]

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.

Good Morning afthomercy,

Well, now we are mixing up things a bit and saying that genetics positively defines the spiritual human. We have found nothing in genetics that specifically addresses the human capacity for relationship with the divine.

There is absolutely nothing in the CCC that claims that human spirituality is a phenomenon transferred genetically. Indeed, why would the Church rule out a spiritual means by which the entirety of genetic humans inherited the spiritual capacity given to Adam and Eve by God? If such a spiritual means took place, the genetics is entirely insignificant; in that case there could have been genetic humans walking around, contemporary with A&E, who did not possess the same gift. They were genetic humans, but not true humans.

There is nothing in the CCC, or Humani Generis that contradicts this. What I described as a possibility above is not addressed in either document, and is pretty much in line with one of your earlier posts.

Granny, if you are going to say that it does contradict, you’d better be ready with some very solid proof!

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 existence of 2-human races (neanderthals and modern humans), one superior to the other, and this is not supported by church doctrine.

True, it is not supported, but it is not denied either. And who is to say whether one was “superior”? Again, aren’t we letting genetics mess with the point of the creation story, and/or with other important spiritual considerations that have nothing to do with genetics?

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?

The Church does not make genetic claims because the Church is not a research institution. It does not behoove Spirituality to let science determine what is the “summit of creation”, that is a Spiritual matter. Let the science make the genetic determination, and let our Church stand by the Spiritual manifestations; there is absolutely no reason, for all the fears, to believe that one “discipline” can or will compromise the other.

That said, I still really liked the ideas you presented earlier; they truly reflect a thoughtful means by which Church teachings and Genomics remain intact.

Thanks!

 

[grannymh]

Yes, the doctrines of the Church are clarified to address the discoveries and “unfolding revelations” of any particular time period. So, yes, if there were a CCC 1500 years ago, it would read quite differently.

What discoveries? What “unfolding revelations?” I am sure you are aware of the CCC paragraphs which would demand particular clarifications depending on the particular time period.

First clarification. Which doctrines are you citing?

Discoveries? Whose discoveries? You must be referring to Jesus Christ. I am sure you are aware of the *CCC *description about Divine Revelation being completed.

Spiritually speaking, nothing has changed? In terms of the human capacity for love and relationship with God, I agree. However, I do believe that human awareness concerning the human condition, what love is, just awareness in general, has greatly increased over the years. We have to take the wrong paths, as a species, then learn that it is wrong, and then take the right paths.

For instance, it has taken a long time for our laws here in America to adjust to the notion that we are all humans of equal importance. This adjustment reflects a change in awareness, a change in Spirituality. Does it indicate a genetic change? No, but changes in the direction of greater awareness are much more significant than changes in genetics.

I think that you see what I mean. Thanks.

Good points above. Thank you.

Regarding America adjusting to the notion that we are all humans of equal importance, there is a story about the Pope reminding the early settlers that all humans, including native Indians, are descendants of Adam and Eve …

I have not been able to verify the story; however, knowing Catholic doctrines about Adam and Eve, my guess is that the story is reasonable.

Regarding Neanderthals. I have not seen a similar story about them. In any case, Neanderthals were extinct at the time America was discovered by real humans.

 

[OneSheep]

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.

Yes, Granny!

Humani Generis does not address the material/physical realm. What we know from Humani Generis is that the first “True Humans” were a pair. This is a statement from a Spiritual, not a physical, perspective.

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 not necessarily true. Many bird species walk upright, and their genes are quite dissimilar, genetically speaking.

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.

Darn, you were making so much sense, and now you had to go say that. Material/physically speaking, evidence indicates that Neanderthals were genetically Homo sapiens. You do not have any genetic evidence that indicates that we are different species, so your claim has no support.

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.

Goodness, Granny, now we have Neanderthals raping other races?

A little biology FYI here,Granny, just in case you don’t understand the whole picture. If a dog were to “rape” a pig, and they were to actually have offspring, and those offspring are capable of further reproduction, then the dog and the pig would be considered of the same species. They are not, because what I described is not possible; they are too genetically dissimilar. Horses and donkeys are similar enough genetically to have offspring, either a hinny or a mule, but these offspring are sterile, so the horse and the donkey are considered different species. This is part of the definition of “species”, Granny. Its a physical/material thing, not a spiritual assertion.

So, if modern humans have some Neanderthal genes, then either the genes predate both races (which is a possibility, but is not likely) or the two races, Neanderthal and “non-Neanderthal”, were actually of the same species. If they were different species, biologically speaking, the offspring of any interbreeding, rape or otherwise, would not produce offspring, period.

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.

Actually there are no “serious concerns” that I know of. What are they, and what evidence do you have of their occurrence?

Evidence, Granny, proof and evidence. The Spiritual assertions made by the Church do not compromise the Scientific findings, and the scientific findings do not compromise the Spiritual assertions. There is absolutely nothing that science can find that will ever disprove Spiritual Revelation. Nothing.

God Bless your day.

 

[davidv]

Yes, Granny!

Humani Generis does not address the material/physical realm. What we know from Humani Generis is that the first “True Humans” were a pair. This is a statement from a Spiritual, not a physical, perspective.
{snip}

This is not obvious. What is your evidence that this is a true statement?

Since the encyclical is speaking about human persons. And human persons are a unique composite of spirit and material. It is logical failure to claim that this statement is only spiritual.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . 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?

We are each of us on a journey towards the Source of our existence. That Way is Jesus Christ.

There is no evolving forward - it is a modern myth.
Biology teaches there is only a fitting or not fitting of species with their environment.
It is all random, scientifically speaking - no biological force driving matter forward.
Once things exist, they change.
As groups/species, plants change, animals change, human beings change and continue in keeping with the challenges posed by the environment.
As animals, chickens are not superior to their dinosaur predecessors.

Now Hinduism has a sort of evolution of the soul, but it is very different from your description above. Again it is an evolution of the soul, not the body, the individual, not the species.

If anything, we as a species are going down.
If we have rolled 100:0 - heads:tails in the genetic flip of the cosmic coin, to get here, the most we can truly hope for is to remain where we are.
Of course, I don’t believe this scenario for a second.

 

[Hans_W]

Hello, Hans W,

Yes, the doctrines of the Church are clarified to address the discoveries and “unfolding revelations” of any particular time period. So, yes, if there were a CCC 1500 years ago, it would read quite differently.

Spiritually speaking, nothing has changed? In terms of the human capacity for love and relationship with God, I agree. However, I do believe that human awareness concerning the human condition, what love is, just awareness in general, has greatly increased over the years. We have to take the wrong paths, as a species, then learn that it is wrong, and then take the right paths.

For instance, it has taken a long time for our laws here in America to adjust to the notion that we are all humans of equal importance. This adjustment reflects a change in awareness, a change in Spirituality. Does it indicate a genetic change? No, but changes in the direction of greater awareness are much more significant than changes in genetics.

I think that you see what I mean. Thanks.

Good morning OneSheep

By “spiritually speaking” I was only thinking of the soul and our relationship with God.

But yes, our human awareness of one another, of the animal world and the natural world around us has changed and increased dramatically.

I assume that with this heightened awareness our moral obligations have gone up as well. What would have been an acceptable treatment of a slave 1000 years ago, would not be adequate today. What would have counted as a “lesser sin” when maltreating animals in the past, would be a greater sin today.

 

[Hans_W]

Discoveries? Whose discoveries? You must be referring to Jesus Christ. I am sure you are aware of the *CCC *description about Divine Revelation being completed.

If I may chip in here, Granny. OneSheep can correct me.

Just a reminder: God has left us with two books, our Bible and the Book of Nature. The latter is marvellous; it is all around us and we continuously discover new things.

 

[grannymh]

Evidence, Granny, proof and evidence. The Spiritual assertions made by the Church do not compromise the Scientific findings, and the scientific findings do not compromise the Spiritual assertions. There is absolutely nothing that science can find that will ever disprove Spiritual Revelation. Nothing.

God Bless your day.

Perhaps, if you substituted the word “interpretation” for findings, you will have a better chance of understanding Catholicism and its doctrines which are not assertions.

 

[OneSheep]

This is not obvious. What is your evidence that this is a true statement?

Since the encyclical is speaking about human persons. And human persons are a unique composite of spirit and material. It is logical failure to claim that this statement is only spiritual.

Well, let’s test this in terms of logic.

P1: human persons are a composite of spirit and material
P2: (implied) Humani Generis addresses genetics, a science of physical/material world.
C: It is a logical failure to claim: “What we know from Humani Generis is that the first ‘True Humans’ were a pair. This is a statement from a Spiritual, not a physical, perspective.”

This seems to fail because the implied premise P2, (if that is the implied premise), is not evident in Humani Generis.

Now, let me test my own statement in terms of logic:

P1: The human is both spiritual and material. Both of these aspects can be addressed separately. (Just like our renal system and digestive system can be addressed separately)
P2: Humani Generis does not address genetics, a science of the physical world (note: the word “genetic” does not appear in the document, and the word “species” (used once) refers to Eucharist. The document addresses Catholic theology/spirituality.
C: What we know from Humani Generis is that the first ‘True Humans’ were a pair. This is a statement from a Spiritual, not a physical, perspective.

Looks pretty good to me.

Feel free to completely correct the assumptions I made…my apologies if they were invalid.

Fear not!

Have a great evening.

 

[grannymh]

Well, let’s test this in terms of logic.

P1: human persons are a composite of spirit and material
P2: (implied) Humani Generis addresses genetics, a science of physical/material world.
C: It is a logical failure to claim: “What we know from Humani Generis is that the first ‘True Humans’ were a pair. This is a statement from a Spiritual, not a physical, perspective.”

This seems to fail because the implied premise P2, (if that is the implied premise), is not evident in Humani Generis.

Now, let me test my own statement in terms of logic:

P1: The human is both spiritual and material. Both of these aspects can be addressed separately. (Just like our renal system and digestive system can be addressed separately)
P2: Humani Generis does not address genetics, a science of the physical world (note: the word “genetic” does not appear in the document, and the word “species” (used once) refers to Eucharist. The document addresses Catholic theology/spirituality.
C: What we know from Humani Generis is that the first ‘True Humans’ were a pair. This is a statement from a Spiritual, not a physical, perspective.

Looks pretty good to me.

Feel free to completely correct the assumptions I made…my apologies if they were invalid.

Fear not!

Have a great evening.

Pt. 1 could use a complete Catholic definition of human nature, including the goal of human persons.

 

[grannymh]

If I may chip in here, Granny. OneSheep can correct me.

Just a reminder: God has left us with two books, our Bible and the Book of Nature. The latter is marvellous; it is all around us and we continuously discover new things.

Agree.

Do you happen to know the discoveries mentioned in post 360?

Thank you.

 

[Hans_W]

Agree.

Do you happen to know the discoveries mentioned in post 360?

Thank you.

What do you mean by “discoveries”?
Here is the entire post 360 by OneSheep:

Yes, the doctrines of the Church are clarified to address the discoveries and “unfolding revelations” of any particular time period. So, yes, if there were a CCC 1500 years ago, it would read quite differently.

Spiritually speaking, nothing has changed? In terms of the human capacity for love and relationship with God, I agree. However, I do believe that human awareness concerning the human condition, what love is, just awareness in general, has greatly increased over the years. We have to take the wrong paths, as a species, then learn that it is wrong, and then take the right paths.

For instance, it has taken a long time for our laws here in America to adjust to the notion that we are all humans of equal importance. This adjustment reflects a change in awareness, a change in Spirituality. Does it indicate a genetic change? No, but changes in the direction of greater awareness are much more significant than changes in genetics.

Can you give examples what you have in mind when you say “discoveries”?

I am thinking of the discovery that the earth is not the center of the universe, the discovery that all living things are (physically) related to one another, the discovery that some people have Neanderthal genes, and so on.

 

[grannymh]

What do you mean by “discoveries”?
Here is the entire post 360 by OneSheep:

Can you give examples what you have in mind when you say “discoveries”?

These are the discoveries I am interested in. They are in the front line of post 360.

“Yes, the doctrines of the Church are clarified to address the discoveries and “unfolding revelations” of any particular time period. So, yes, if there were a CCC 1500 years ago, it would read quite differently.”

Guess I better not inquire about which doctrines of the Catholic Church.

 

[grannymh]

Yes, the doctrines of the Church are clarified to address the discoveries and “unfolding revelations” of any particular time period. So, yes, if there were a CCC 1500 years ago, it would read quite differently.

Pardon me. I do not intend to be rude. I am deeply curious about what is beneath this fluff.

 

[Thorolfr]

There’s an interesting new article in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal about all the new discoveries that are being made from Ancient DNA. Here is part of that article:

Dr. Pääbo is best known for his achievement in sequencing the Neanderthal genome in 2009 and for his discovery that a small amount (up to 4%) of Neanderthal DNA is found in modern Europeans and other non-Africans. This suggests that when African emigrants overwhelmed the Neanderthal populations of Europe and western Asia some 40,000 to 30,000 years ago, they interbred with them to some small extent—thus anticipating the scenarios of admixture described by studies of later waves of migration.

In 2010, Dr. Pääbo and his colleagues startled the world again by discovering (from the DNA in a 50,000-year-old finger bone found in a cave at Denisova in the mountains of western Siberia) that a hitherto unsuspected third type of early human lived in Asia at this time. These “Denisovans” are as distantly related to the Neanderthals as they are to us “Africans.” A small amount (up to 6%) of their DNA survives in the genomes of Melanesians and Australian aborigines, which suggests that somewhere on their way east from Africa, probably in southeast Asia, modern humans mated occasionally with Denisovans.

Now comes evidence that Tibetans also have a Denisovan connection. In the thin air of the Tibetan plateau, the local people can survive only because of specially evolved versions of a gene called EPAS1. In a study published last summer in Nature, Emilia Huerta-Sánchez and Rasmus Nielsen of the University of California, Berkeley, and their colleagues found this version of the DNA sequence around EPAS1 in the ancient genetic material of the Denisovans. Mating with Denisovans seems to have enabled people to survive at high elevations in Tibet.

Ancient DNA is telling us, in short, not only who mated with whom and when but which genes were then promoted by natural selection in the resulting offspring to improve their chances of survival. As Dr. Thomas of University College London points out, changes in the frequency of particular DNA sequences are the stuff of evolution itself. Directly measuring how DNA changed over time, by comparing samples from different periods of human history, allows us to see evolution not in the survival rates of organisms (that is, through a middleman of sorts) but in genetic material itself.

Consider, for example, the invention of farming in Europe about 8,500 years ago, a shift that caused rapid evolutionary change in the genes of Europeans as they adapted to new diets, new pathogens and new social structures. Some of this can be inferred from the study of modern DNA, but ancient DNA can catch it in the act.

A forthcoming paper by Dr. Reich’s group looks at 83 individuals from the period before, during and after the arrival of agriculture. The study analyzes 300,000 different sections of their genomes and p(name removed by moderator)oints just five genes that changed rapidly.

The strongest signal came from the mutation for lactase persistence—that is, the ability to continue digesting the milk sugar lactose after infancy. Normally, mammals don’t need to digest lactose as adults, and the necessary lactase gene switches off when a baby is weaned from its mother.

This changed for human beings, however, when dairy farming introduced milk into the adult diet. A mutation that prevented the weaning switch-off spread in Europeans fairly late, around 4,300 years ago, probably long after dairy farming was invented, but it gave its possessors a significant advantage: They derived more nutrition from drinking milk (and suffered less indigestion) than their rivals.

Two genes that affect skin color were also subject to rapid evolutionary selection as early farmers tried to subsist on grain-rich, vitamin-D-poor diets in northern areas with low levels of sunlight. (Sunlight helps the body to convert a form of cholesterol into a form of vitamin D.) The shift to pale skin—which produces vitamin D more efficiently than darker skin—among northern Europeans after the advent of farming appears to have proceeded rapidly, pointing to some of the strongest selection pressures ever recorded in human genetics.

wsj.com/articles/ancient-dna-tells-a-new-human-story-1430492134

 

[Bradski]

There’s an interesting new article in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal about all the new discoveries that are being made from Ancient DNA. Here is part of that article:

Fascinating…

 

[davidv]

Fascinating…

Fascinating indeed. However, it does not begin to answer whether Neanderthal is human.

 

[afthomercy]

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

My interpretation of para 37 above is that the Church admits the possibility -in an evolutionary scenario- that there were other “true men” who lived alongside Adam, but nonetheless asserts that after Adam (i.e. after his lifetime), all lineages (if any) that did not flow through him were extinguished. How can this be achieved otherwise than through a severe and selective bottleneck?

Further, here spirituality and genetics intersect. Original Sin, though being in the realm of spirituality, is now linked to genetic lineage for the purpose of transmission down to us.