Why didn't God save Neanderthals?

[afthomercy]

…The souls of non-human living things are generated from nature. St Thomas Aquinas holds that non-human souls of living things are educed out of the matter which is provided by the female and male parents and upon the fertilization of this matter. There is a certain power, for example, in the semen of the male parent that upon the fertilization of the female egg, this power is able to educe from the matter the soul for the new thing…

Thank you. If modern man is in fact descended from pre-existent living matter a.k.a the neanderthals, it has to mean that a sensitive soul is even today created at the time of his conception in his mother’s womb, which incidentally, would explain his animal instincts. To this, God would be consciously/deliberately adding rationality, free will and immortality, in order to make it a spiritual soul.

What I want to know is whether there is any time-point, sufficiently far back in antiquity, as would allow the entire present day human race to be descended from a single man (Adam)?

Can we then assume that papa Adam lived at that particular time in antiquity (as a hominid/archaic human if necessary) with spiritual soul, but his natural descendents for several generations were not blessed with spiritual souls, and when the biological evolution to modern humans ultimately happened, God duly shifted to widespread creation of spiritual souls? God being God, would be aware of which particular lineages are directly descended from Adam (in order to infuse the spiritual soul only for them). All non-Adamic lineages would have been selectively rendered infertile so that they ultimately died out! This is compatible with inter-breeding of homo sapiens and neanderthal populations.

The above overcomes the science objection that there never was any point in human history when two sole humans interrupted the natural population growth of the human species. It is not necessary for the entire human race to be descended from an exact pair of two individuals - there could have been any number of female contemporaries of Adam whom he might have inseminated and whose progeny would therefore carry the stain of Original Sin. In fact, thanks to his fallen nature, sexual restraint would have been lost and he could very possibly have been in reproductive overdrive! Incidentally, if the fallen Eve was equally promiscuous, then would her progeny through other males also carry the stain of Original Sin? If yes, it only expands the initial number of lineages which got corrupted with Original Sin, and makes it that much less necessary for the human population to have been reduced to exactly two!

I accept that this sounds a little contrived, but it is the only way I see of reconciling Humanis Generis para 35-37 with the ‘doctrine’ of evolution.

And finally, to answer the OP, yes, those neanderthals who were descended from Adam AND WHO HAD SPIRITUAL SOULS were saved. The others weren’t true humans anyway and hence the question of saved/unsaved doesn’t apply to them!

 

[grannymh]

Before I reply to post 419 …

Why on earth does a person have to reconcile the Catholic doctrine of Original Sin with the Science of Human Evolution???

 

[Jerry-Jet]

All modern humans have souls and are descended from Adam and Eve.

All pure Neanderthals have no souls.

All admixtures of the two have souls.

Man is a body and soul composite.

Whatever percentage of man’s DNA that is not modern man–Neanderthal or any other type does not constitute that composite.

In other words in the glorified body which we will all have after the general judgement–there will be no Neanderthal DNA in it.

The parts of our body that have Neanderthal DNA are not part of our bodies in an everlasting sense.

Is there any chance that what I am saying could be true?

 

[grannymh]

All modern humans have souls and are descended from Adam and Eve.

True

All pure Neanderthals have no souls.

When one considers that Neanderthals did not directly descend from Adam and Eve, then Neanderthals, regardless of their genome, would not have souls.

All admixtures of the two have souls.

All admixtures would be considered as an hypothesis. At present, the main consideration is whether or not Neanderthals are direct descendants of Adam and Eve.

Man is a body and soul composite.

Some years back, there was a question about the word “composite.” I will check this.
In the meantime, my suggestion is to study CCC 362-366.

Links to the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.

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

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Whatever percentage of man’s DNA that is not modern man–Neanderthal or any other type does not constitute that composite.

In general, DNA is a description for all the genes in a specific individual. Genes have specific functions such as the formation of one’s eyes or the ability to walk upright. Humans are classified as vertebrates. Thus, we would have similar genes to other vertebrates. It really is not a big deal that we would share similar genes with those found in archaic fossils. Genes are physical material things. Genes for the sense of smell, for example, do not have to directly evolve from a single ancestor. Genes for the sense of smell could develop as a survival tool in any species.

In other words in the glorified body which we will all have after the general judgement–there will be no Neanderthal DNA in it.

The parts of our body that have Neanderthal DNA are not part of our bodies in an everlasting sense.

I do not know the exact description for our glorified body – I just hope I get one.

 

[afthomercy]

Before I reply to post 419 …

Why on earth does a person have to reconcile the Catholic doctrine of Original Sin with the Science of Human Evolution???

grannymh,
Quoting from your own post#384 on pg. 26: “The basic science approach is that within the ancient history of humankind, there never was a point when two sole humans interrupted the natural population growth of the human species. This puts Adam and Eve at some improbable point within the established history of humankind. Catholicism challenges that opinion.”

My endeavour is not so much to reconcile Original Sin with evolution, but to avoid the head-on collision between faith and reason posed by the above dilemma.

In the estimate of the scientists, could the entire human race as it exists today have come from a small progenitor group, all of whom were the progeny of two contemporaries (Adam & Eve), but not necessarily out of intercourse between Adam and Eve? Envisage a scenario of Adam and Eve separately mating with a largish number of females and males respectively and producing fertile offspring. It is not necessary the Adam and Eve should have been modern humans. They could have been archaic humans or of even earlier vintage.

 

[Ignatius]

**Why didn’t God save Neanderthals? **

Why do you think they weren’t saved?

 

[grannymh]

grannymh,
Quoting from your own post#384 on pg. 26: “The basic science approach is that within the ancient history of humankind, there never was a point when two sole humans interrupted the natural population growth of the human species. This puts Adam and Eve at some improbable point within the established history of humankind. Catholicism challenges that opinion.”

My endeavour is not so much to reconcile Original Sin with evolution, but to avoid the head-on collision between faith and reason posed by the above dilemma.

May I respectfully present the fact that it is exactly the conflict between the Divine Revelation of Original Sin and the human revelation of human origin which is currently prominent. My favorite attack on Original Sin is when a CAF poster referred to the reality of Adam and Eve as granny’s magical mystery tour or words to that effect with the emphasis on magical.

Here is an older sample of what is happening off CAF. I will not give the newspaper citation or the priest’s name.
In an article about the first couple, Father wrote that Catholics who ask, “Were there an Adam and Eve?” would be better off asking another question: “Are there an Adam and Eve?”

The answer, he said, “is a definite ‘yes.’ We find them when we look in the mirror. We are Adam, and we are Eve. … The man and woman of Genesis … are intended to represent an Everyman and Everywoman. They are paradigms, figurative equivalents, of human conduct in the face of temptation, not lessons in biology or history. The Bible is teaching religion, not science or literalistic history.”
Obviously, the bits about a magical tour and Adam and Eve in the mirror do not explicitly mention Original Sin. Satan has dressed up the original Arianism heresy in fancy arguments about faith and reason and consequently everyone can see the reasonableness of eliminating the Catholic meaning of original because that is the easy way to avoid a head-on collision. Eliminate the head-on collision eliminates Adam which then eliminates Original Sin and then we have the revived Satan’s Arianism. In order to remain on topic, I will not continue on the topic of Arianism.

In order to have a Catholic doctrinal approach to Why didn’t God save Neanderthals? Catholics need to understand the Catholic doctrines involving Original Sin and the subsequent doctrines involving the Divinity of Jesus Christ. Both the doctrines of Original Sin and the universal mission of Jesus Christ are based on the unique population of two who founded the human species.

Do the hypotheses of natural science support an originating human population of two? Next question. What is the relationship of the Neanderthal population to the founders of humankind, Adam and Eve?

Does Divine Revelation trump?

 

[afthomercy]

…Do the hypotheses of natural science support an originating human population of two? Next question. What is the relationship of the Neanderthal population to the founders of humankind, Adam and Eve? …

My counter questions to the first of the above questions are:
a) Does the church really insist upon an originating human population of two? Humanis Generis only obliges us to believe that we are all descended from a real man called Adam. As I have hypothesised, the fallen Adam need not have been a monogamist and could have started many lineages through relations with any number of females who may have even been neanderthals.
b) Why does Humanis Generis not talk of the transmission of Original Sin through Eve? It is not outside the realm of probability that once expelled from Eden, the couple parted ways since relations between them had got soured. Then she could have mated with any number of males (whether through rape or otherwise) and had progeny. Would such lineages carry Original Sin?

I think I have answered the second of your quoted two questions: The neanderthal race supplied the extra-marital sexual partners to Adam and Eve and thus served to exponentially expand the second and subsequent generations of the population of the true humans.

 

[Hans_W]

It is fascinating to follow this armchair discussion.
Thanks God for the scientists who go out into the world, make their hands dirty, and come back with REAL answers.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Thanks God for the scientists who go out into the world, make their hands dirty, and come back with REAL answers.

LoL. Seriously dude, to borrow from a common meme, “Do you even have a BSc?”

 

[grannymh]

Yes.

The true Catholic Church declares the infallible doctrine that all humankind descended from only two original fully-human founders biblically known as Mr. and Mrs. Adam and Eve.


All the presented garbage in the name of free speech will never change God’s Divine Revelation.

Yes.

Divine Revelation Trumps!
:clapping:

 

[afthomercy]

The true Catholic Church declares the infallible doctrine that all humankind descended from only two original fully-human founders biblically known as Mr. and Mrs. Adam and Eve.

That’s a very heavy statement you just made. Can you please quote sources? In Humanis Generis para 37, there is reference to Adam as the “first parent of all” (note the singular). There is no reference to Eve at all! What are we to make of it?

Also, CCC para 400 says about Original Sin: “The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul’s spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination…” If so, why do you think that Adam and Eve would have remained faithful to each other?

 

[Thorolfr]

The true Catholic Church declares the infallible doctrine that all humankind descended from only two original fully-human founders biblically known as Mr. and Mrs. Adam and Eve.

Strange names. The word Adam in Genesis is not a personal name but just a generic term for “human being”. “Eve” is the Anglicized version of the name that appears in the original Hebrew text which is “Hawah”. A number of commentators have pointed out that this name is suspiciously like the Aramaic word for “serpent”. So our ancestors are “Human being” and his wife “Serpent”.

 

[grannymh]

That’s a very heavy statement you just made. Can you please quote sources?

Paragraph 37, Footnote 12, Humani Generis, Pius XII, August 12, 1950.
CCC 404, Footnotes 293 & 294.

In Humanis Generis para 37, there is reference to Adam as the “first parent of all” (note the singular). There is no reference to Eve at all! What are we to make of it?

We can conclude that Adam’s spouse Eve is the second human being .

Also, CCC para 400 says about Original Sin: “The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul’s spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination…” If so, why do you think that Adam and Eve would have remained faithful to each other?

I believe in true love that of husband for wife and wife for husband and both husband and wife for God. I believe in the State of Sanctifying Grace and the evil of the State of Mortal Sin. I believe that the human person can choose to be good with the help of God’s graces.

I do not believe that it is necessary to stomp on people in order to demonstrate a theory. However, I do understand that I am in the lower minority.

 

[afthomercy]

Paragraph 37, Footnote 12, Humani Generis, Pius XII, August 12, 1950.
CCC 404, Footnotes 293 & 294.

None of the above citations mentions that we are all descended from Adam and Eve BOTH. In fact, throughout the Church documents on Original Sin, the stress is on Adam as the father of us all. There is no simultaneous stress on Eve as the mother of us all.

BTW, I never knew that either the CCC or the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas have the status of “infallible doctrines”!

We can conclude that Adam’s spouse Eve is the second human being .

I also agree to that. However, the possibility of them having neanderthal extra-marital partners just cannot be ruled out, especially in view of the undisputed fact that modern humans and neanderthals co-existed and interbred for ten of thousands of years!

I believe in true love that of husband for wife and wife for husband and both husband and wife for God. I believe in the State of Sanctifying Grace and the evil of the State of Mortal Sin. I believe that the human person can choose to be good with the help of God’s graces.

Despite this, we can see the sorry state of marriage as it exists today. What makes you think that it was any different in the time of Adam and Eve (post Fall)?

I do not believe that it is necessary to stomp on people in order to demonstrate a theory. However, I do understand that I am in the lower minority.

Frankly, grannymh, you seem to be letting your romantic notions about the purity of Adam and Eve colour your objectivity. I hope you don’t consider my this statement as “stomping”

 

[davidv]

None of the above citations mentions that we are all descended from Adam and Eve BOTH. In fact, throughout the Church documents on Original Sin, the stress is on Adam as the father of us all. There is no simultaneous stress on Eve as the mother of us all.

It seems that there is more than objectivity missing to make this claim. Catholics cannot accept a polygenetic origin of the human person. She requires that were accept our origin in a single pair of human persons.

BTW, I never knew that either the CCC or the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas have the status of “infallible doctrines”!

I also agree to that. However, the possibility of them having neanderthal extra-marital partners just cannot be ruled out, especially in view of the undisputed fact that modern humans and neanderthals co-existed and interbred for ten of thousands of years!

Despite this, we can see the sorry state of marriage as it exists today. What makes you think that it was any different in the time of Adam and Eve (post Fall)?

Frankly, grannymh, you seem to be letting your romantic notions about the purity of Adam and Eve colour your objectivity. I hope you don’t consider my this statement as “stomping”

What purity are you speaking of? This last statement may not be stomping but neither is it respectful.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . your romantic notions about the purity of Adam and Eve colour your objectivity. I hope you don’t consider my this statement as “stomping”

I don’t see it as stomping but rather reflecting a lack of appreciation for the depth of meaning contained in Genesis, which simply and clearly reveals who we are and the nature of our relationships with each other and with God. Rather that acting as an apologist for the limited understandings of today’s science, why not immerse yourself in the Dialogue which God has established with us through scripture.

 

[grannymh]

Just a bit of speculation, FWIW (which is nothing), once a Spiritual connection to God was added to A & E, (free will, etc), that “trait” could have been spread to everyone.

My apology.

I do not remember comparing this bit of speculation with actual Catholic doctrines.

I do recognize that it is acceptable for Catholics to speculate until the cows come home. That being said, it is very important to present Catholic Church teachings so that readers will not come away with false ideas about the Catholic Church.

For example. One can say that all living organisms such as flies and frogs have a “spiritual” connection with God, the supreme Spiritual Creator. (Genesis 1: 1) However, the Catholic Church goes a step further when it declares a mountain of a differences between fish of the sea and human nature (see shift from Genesis 1: 25 to Genesis 1: 26). The most obvious and delightful difference is that the first humans, lovingly known as Adam and Eve, were created immediately as an unique unification (Genesis 1: 27) of a decomposing anatomy and a spiritual soul.

Adam and Eve arrived as fully-complete humans. What was added were extra gifts such as freedom from material death. That gift depended on Adam maintaining his relationship with his Creator. When Adam freely chose to scorn God, he shattered the relationship between humanity and Divinity.

Consequently, post 397 speculation …
“Just a bit of speculation, FWIW (which is nothing), once a Spiritual connection to God was added to A & E, (free will, etc), that “trait” could have been spread to everyone.”

… is actually a misunderstanding or misconception (especially that spreading"trait") of the actual Catholic teachings on body and soul (CCC 355-358; CCC 362-366; CCC 1730-1732)

As I mentioned above, it is important to present Catholic Church teachings so that readers will not come away with false ideas about the Catholic Church. It is very important to understand the Catholic position regarding the basic differences (Catholic teachings on the spiritual soul) between flies, frogs, fish and the family of humans–especially human origin (population of two) which is distinct from all other living biological organisms.

Links to the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.
usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[afthomercy]

Catholics cannot accept a polygenetic origin of the human person. She requires that were accept our origin in a single pair of human persons.

Humanis Generis para 37 (emphasis added):
“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.”*

I request you to read the above para dispassionately. You have to pay equal attention to what it says and to what it doesn’t say. It says that Adam is the first parent (note the singular) of us all. Nowhere does it mention or imply about a single pair of parents. That is a deliberate omission which has heavy implications. I admire Pope Pius XII’s sagacity in the wording of the paragraph. Insisting upon a single originating pair of parents would have unnecessarily set up a head-to-head collision between faith and reason.

Second, it rejects polygenism to the extent it conjectures multiple fatherhood for humanity. It however does not prescribe unique motherhood as an article of faith.

Third, it uses the term “after Adam”. It means that it is deliberately being silent about the possibility of existence of true human ancestors/peers/contemporaries of Adam.

What purity are you speaking of?

The marital fidelity of Adam and Eve.

 

[grannymh]

Humanis Generis para 37 (emphasis added):
"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."

I request you to read the above para dispassionately. You have to pay equal attention to what it says and to what it doesn’t say. It says that Adam is the first parent (note the singular) of us all. Nowhere does it mention or imply about a single pair of parents. That is a deliberate omission which has heavy implications. I admire Pope Pius XII’s sagacity in the wording of the paragraph. Insisting upon a single originating pair of parents would have unnecessarily set up a head-to-head collision between faith and reason.

Second, it rejects polygenism to the extent it conjectures multiple fatherhood for humanity. It however does not prescribe unique motherhood as an article of faith.

Third, it uses the term “after Adam”. It means that it is deliberately being silent about the possibility of existence of true human ancestors/peers/contemporaries of Adam.

The marital fidelity of Adam and Eve.

Naturally, people have always read what they wish to read. I do that when researching. However, as an editor, there are times when I have to correct my first impressions.

Those familiar with polygenism understand that it requires* both* a large population and a significant about of time for multiple generations of males and females to breed. Thus “after Adam” could possibly refer to the obvious fact that a polygenism population continues to produce, that is, give birth. Polygenisn does not have to have Adam in the first batch. He could be in the middle years of an indiscriminate, random-mating, fun-loving population. It is only in the Garden of Eden that Eve did not have to worry about a more beautiful sex partner for Adam.

As for a pair of first parents, apparently the author of the first three chapters of Genesis knew something about the science of biology.