Why didn't God save Neanderthals?

[grannymh]

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.

When I think about all these polygenism speculations, I wonder where does Original Sin come in.

From *Humani Generis (*opinion refers to the basic tenet of the Science of Human Evolution which declares that we descended from a very large bunch of archaic fossils and not, heaven forbid, from a population of two real fully-complete humans.)
“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.[12]”

Footnote 12 is Cfr. Rom., V, 12-19; Conc. Trid., sess, V, can. 1-4.

Yes, I know about all the people correcting God’s Divine Revelation by putting the word “apparent” in big bold red letters. One would think by now, that the Catholic doctrines regarding Original Sin and the Divinity of Jesus Christ (Romans 5: 12-21; 1 Corinthians 15: 21-22) had been modernized. Personally, I remember reading my first adult biography of Jesus Christ in which the author questioned the Divinity of Jesus–the explanation for all those tasty loaves and fishes was that suddenly 50% of the listeners shared their brown bag lunch with the other half who had been too lazy to come prepared.

Since August 12, 1950, a lot of scientific miracles, especially in the medical arena, have happened. My personal favorite is awake brain surgery. Yet, one Adam, one Original Sin, and 1 Corinthians 15: 54-55 are still in the Catholic Deposit of Faith.

Here is a bit of fascinating information from the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraph 389. I put the key message in bold.
**389 **The doctrine of original sin is, so to speak, the “reverse side” of the Good News that Jesus is the Savior of all men, that all need salvation and that salvation is offered to all through Christ. The Church, which has the mind of Christ, knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.

 

[Hans_W]

…Since August 12, 1950, a lot of scientific miracles, especially in the medical arena, have happened…

“Scientific miracles”? Since August 12, 1950? This sounds exciting! Tell us more.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . . 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. . .

I think we would all agree that there is no collision, that there cannot be any collision between the truth and reason.
We know or should know that the truth that is of any significance to us is to be found God’s dialogue with His children - scripture.
The Faith that allows us to see its truth is guided by the Holy Spirit who endows us with wisdom, understanding, and knowledge.

I don’t believe Pope Pius’ words were intended to avoid a “collision between faith and reason”, but to simply affirm the truth.
His words may or may not fit with what you imagine are the origins of humanity.
To me, your views do not sound more reasonable than others that have been posted.

You find them to be more reasonable because of the faith you have
in your teachers, the books you have read, the Discovery Channel and other shows you have seen
which expound and take for granted the existence of similar views.

What we are seeking to understand here is where all this started from

• the thinking, understanding, the words, the communication between individual, unique beings.
  Our existence, with its joys and sorrows, the challenges, successes and defeats, cowardice and bravery are all rooted in the eternal and manifested in time.
  As we are here, encountering this mystery, so too all our forebears, going back to our beginnings.

You are obviously addressing our physical structure,
trying to imagine how it developed and changed through the ages,
the embryo of humanity within the womb of the physical universe,
with our spiritual life-blood - Christ.

When the teachings of the church are stretched to fit with such deeply held scientific beliefs,
it seriously limits what one considers possible, what one might call reasonable,
to a very narrow and rather dry world view that can very easily do away with God.
And in the end, rather than opening, they seal up our relationship with, our understanding of reality

 

[Yarb]

What makes our species within the great apes and other primates more special than others or more special than the now extinct Homo neanderthalensis, a separate species? We surely destroy the planet, cause other species to become extinct, and slaughter eachother at the greatest rate of any species in the animal kingdom.

I could imagine someone saying we needed saving because we slaughter each other and destroy the planet, but Neanderthals were sinless and didn’t need saving.

Or that God does save the Neanderthals.

 

[MariaTheresa]

Catholics can believe in evolution.

 

[grannymh]

Catholics can believe in evolution.

Catholics can believe in the evolution of ants, plants, bacteria, bears, and birds.

However, when it comes to the modern science of human evolution, the Catholic Church opposes the basic tenet that humans originated as an indiscriminate, random-breeding, humanizing over many years, population larger than two.

 

[rmtracey]

How can any of us know God’s thinking. We are all created (i.e. evolved) and none of us are "God’s chosen people "
I do not think that he/she is going to sit in the sky on a throne differentiating on the basis of beliefs that man and man alone has come up with, be it catholics (christians), jews, moslems, or any other belief.

I actually think he almost certainly has a bit more intelligence.

 

[Vico]

So it is now proven that Man evolved from Neanderthals ?

Modern humans seem to have mated with at least Neanderthals and Denisovans.“Comparing genomes, scientists concluded that today’s humans outside Africa carry an average of 2.5 percent Neanderthal DNA, and that people from parts of Oceania also carry about 5 percent Denisovan DNA.”
nytimes.com/2012/01/31/science/gains-in-dna-are-speeding-research-into-human-origins.html?_r=0

 

[afthomercy]

Catholics can believe in the evolution of ants, plants, bacteria, bears, and birds.

By this, do you imply that they cannot believe in the origin of the human body from pre-existent living matter? If so, you are going beyond Humanis Generis para 36 which has no reservations in leaving this question open, only insisting that souls are immediately created by God.

However, when it comes to the modern science of human evolution, the Catholic Church opposes the basic tenet that humans originated as an indiscriminate, random-breeding, humanizing over many years, population larger than two.

I once again question from where you get the originating number of two. Can you please elaborate what footnote 12 to Humanis Generis para 37 is referencing?
“Cfr. Rom., V, 12-19; Conc. Trid., sess, V, can. 1-4.” is mighty obscure to an ordinary lay person like me.

Yet, one Adam, one Original Sin, and 1 Corinthians 15: 54-55 are still in the Catholic Deposit of Faith.

Absolutely, but where does it mention “one woman” or “one Eve” or “one couple”?
Specifically, where does the Catholic deposit of faith mention that Adam had only one sexual mate outside Eden? Humanis Generis which is a relatively recent and deliberately worded document certainly does not, unless it lies buried in that footnote 12!

 

[afthomercy]

I don’t believe Pope Pius’ words were intended to avoid a “collision between faith and reason”, but to simply affirm the truth.

Emphasis added. I totally agree with you here. The truth, for His Holiness, is that there was a real person (Adam) and that we are all biologically descended from him. If the truth, for him, had been that we are also descended from one person Eve as the mother of us all, wouldn’t he have stated so? The fact that he has remained silent on that aspect shows that our maternity is irrelevant and is not a part of the sacred deposit of faith, and hence we are free to speculate on it.

 

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by grannymh forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Catholics can believe in the evolution of ants, plants, bacteria, bears, and birds.

By this, do you imply that they cannot believe in the origin of the human body from pre-existent living matter?

Ants, plants, bacteria, bears, and birds do not have a human body. However, I have read that certain horses have a human head.

In any case, there has been a discussion that human blood and guts, skin and bones, because they are physical/material, could have come from pre-existent physical/material living matter. The dirt of the earth is also physical/material matter but it is not living matter. This is why the Catholic Church teaches that 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. (CCC 365) Additional information is found in CCC 362-366.

I strongly suggest that paragraph 36 , Humani Generis be thoroughly studied. Please keep in mind that current natural science teaches that the human population, over many years, descended from previous mixed genetic populations aka common ancestors.

I put in bold an interesting bit of information which is often overlooked.
36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

I once again question from where you get the originating number of two. Can you please elaborate what footnote 12 to Humanis Generis para 37 is referencing?
“Cfr. Rom., V, 12-19; Conc. Trid., sess, V, can. 1-4.” is mighty obscure to an ordinary lay person like me.

As I am an ordinary lay person, the number* two *is common sense. The footnote 12 simply refers to these words from paragraph 37.
"the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church"

The sources are Scripture and the major ecumenical church councils guided by the wisdom of the Holy Spirit. At the moment, I do not have the information detailing doctrines from these councils. However, being an ordinary lay person, I figure that Pius XII is smart enough to check previous council’s duly defined and properly proclaimed doctrines.

Interested readers could check Romans 5: 12-21, listed in the CCC Index of Citations, page 710. As an ordinary lay person, I consider CCC 402 sufficient because it speaks about one man. Maybe some people think that Pope Pius XII believed that Genesis 2: 23-24 is polygamy. ??

My apology because I do not have Council proceedings at my figure tips. I am an ordinary lay person who understands the simple common sense of various doctrines surrounding two founders, male and female progenitors of humankind. I am also aware that current natural science (since the early 20th century) is based on originating, over time, populations (plural intended) which means that **the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter **(paragraph 36 above) refers to the indiscriminate random-mating (polygamy) of an “existing and living matter” population. No matter how one wiggles, an originating population of thousands is not the same as an originating population of two real true fully-complete human persons.

 

[Yarb]

Here’s an interesting site:

neanderthal.de/en/

For the German-language version, use this URL:

neanderthal.de

“Neanderthal” is a valley in Germany where fossils were found, acquainting humans with the existence of those we now cal “Neanderthals”. “Neanderthal” might be rendered in English as “Neander Valley” since “Thal” means “valley”. In present-day German spelling, “Tal” means “valley” and the valley is called “Neandertal”, but when it refers to the extinct human subspecies I think the Germans still spell it “Neanderthal”. In German it’s pronounced the same either way.

If I understand correctly, the Neanderthal Museum is actually located in the valley in Germany where the fossils were found.

(Whether Neanderthals needed saving or were saved, I doubt you’ll find out from the web site.)

 

[afthomercy]

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.

But why the insistence on pairing Adam exclusively with Eve ? Why can’t it be Adam + any other genetically human female? CCC 400 tells us that due to the Fall, “the harmony in which they (Adam and Eve) 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…”
We can already see the fissure in the marital relationship in Adam’s words “the woman you put here with me gave me and I ate”. Once outside Eden, if there were genetically human adult males and females walking around, its not too difficult to see either or both of them (certainly Adam) straying! Anyway, if you insist they were rock solid faithful to each other, biology tells us that the only way that their line could have propagated would have been through repetitive incest. Are you OK with that?

As regards Adam being in the middle batch of the polygenic population, Humanis Generis doesn’t have a problem with that. However it insists that AFTER Adam, there didn’t exist any lineages that didn’t trace their descent from him. What this implies is that all non-Adamic lineages (if any) were selectively exterminated/allowed to die out by God. Also note that Humanis Generis doesn’t specify that descent has to be from the pairing of Adam with Eve alone. It fixes only the paternity of the present human race. The question of Maternity is not touched upon at all. Let’s be clear on that.

 

[grannymh]

But why the insistence on pairing Adam exclusively with Eve ? Why can’t it be Adam + any other genetically human female?

The Catholic Church teaches that the word “HUMAN” means a being whose actual real nature is an unique union of spirit and matter. (Information source: *CCC *362-366)
If someone wants to call a human a “genetically” human female, that does not change the Catholic teaching that the word “human” means a being who “occupies a unique place in creation:” (CCC 355)

skip

Once outside Eden, if there were genetically human adult males and females walking around, its not too difficult to see either or both of them (certainly Adam) straying!

The Catholic Church teaches that an adult human, regardless of sex, is “in the image of God;” and “in his own nature he unites the spiritual and material worlds;” (CCC 355)

Anyway, if you insist they were rock solid faithful to each other, biology tells us that the only way that their line could have propagated would have been through repetitive incest. Are you OK with that?

Please note that any sexual relationship between parent and child is automatically ruled out.

Can I conclude that you are referring to humans (as described by the Catholic Church) who are able to marry because their relationship to each other is not that of parent and child?

Naturally, we are only referring to the first generations descending from the original sole real fully-complete human founders of humankind. During this brief period in the beginning of human history, the length of female fertility and the overlap of family generations are essential information. When both are properly considered, one naturally finds that the brother/sister marriage fades quickly. Recall that the initial brother/sister marriage was briefly and minimally necessary to fulfill God’s blessing in Genesis 1: 28. That brief period was before abuse and complications could set in.

So quickly that brother/sister marriage fade, that today’s civil requirements for marriage were not yet established due to the principles that it takes time and ancestry for inherited diseases. Recall that Adam and Eve did not have human (as defined by the Catholic Church) ancestors.

As regards Adam being in the middle batch of the polygenic population, Humanis Generis doesn’t have a problem with that.

First sentence in paragraph 37, Humani Generis, Pius XII, 1950

“When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty.”

However it insists that AFTER Adam, there didn’t exist any lineages that didn’t trace their descent from him. What this implies is that all non-Adamic lineages (if any) were selectively exterminated/allowed to die out by God. Also note that Humanis Generis doesn’t specify that descent has to be from the pairing of Adam with Eve alone. It fixes only the paternity of the present human race. The question of Maternity is not touched upon at all. Let’s be clear on that.

Second sentence in paragraph 37, Humani Generis, Pius XII, 1950

“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.”
This cranky granny is having a hard time deciding if non-Adamic lineages are non-human or human. Here is my dilemma. As a Catholic believer in Catholic teachings regarding my human origin and my human nature – if those "all non-Adamic lineages " were not human, then there is no problem.

But, what happens if Pius XII is implying that current science states that there are non-Adamic lineages leading to you and me?

Paleoanthropology and molecular biology, etc., scientists have already insisted that there are no Adam and Eve lineages.

According to the science of human evolution, there are lineages (including humans, you and me) which diverged, as populations, from the Homo(human)/Pan(chimpanzee) Common Ancestor. According to the scientific approach, Adam and Eve are declared a fantasy because Adam and Eve is a population of two. Personally, I prefer the Catholic approach.

 

[afthomercy]

According to the scientific approach, Adam and Eve are declared a fantasy because Adam and Eve is a population of two. Personally, I prefer the Catholic approach.

This means that Catholics have a hard choice: If they accept evolution of the human being (in the way that the natural sciences presently believe it to have happened, viz. polygenism), then they have embraced error. On the other hand, if they stick to the Catholic doctrine of exactly two real people from whom we all are descended, then they risk ridicule from the rest of the world!

 

[Tomdstone]

This means that Catholics have a hard choice: If they accept evolution of the human being (in the way that the natural sciences presently believe it to have happened, viz. polygenism), then they have embraced error. On the other hand, if they stick to the Catholic doctrine of exactly two real people from whom we all are descended, then they risk ridicule from the rest of the world!

I did not know that Catholics were required to take the Adam and Eve story literally. Is it a sin if you believe the story is to be taken figuratively?

 

[Vico]

I did not know that Catholics were required to take the Adam and Eve story literally. Is it a sin if you believe the story is to be taken figuratively?

Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Humani Generis:36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter – for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faithful[11] Some however rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from preexisting and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

1. Cfr. Allocut Pont. to the members of the Academy of Science, November 30, 1941: A.A.S., Vol. XXXIII, p. 506.
2. 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 either that 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.[12]
3. Cfr. Rom., V, 12-19, Conc. Trid., sess, V, can. 1-4.

papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12HUMAN.HTM

 

[opusAquinas]

I think God made Adam and Eve out of nothing like the miracles of the bread and fish and… the whole universe.

Also note that Our Lord saved the HUMAN RACE.

If the neanderthals were tested and fell from grace is a question? And if they did fall how were they saved since 1) they died out and 2) they are a difference species than humans. Thus they were not saved becauaw God became human Homo Sapien and not the species homo neanderthalensis.

We are the same genus but not same species.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Modern humans of European/Asian descent share 1-4% of our DNA with neanderthals and there is strong evidence humans interbred with neanderthals at one point around 40,000 years ago. It has been determined neanderthals also had the FOXP2 gene associated with language development and speech. Furthermore neanderthals used tools and created what we would consider very primitive art. They would most likely have the intellectual capacity to ask “Why am I here”?

It’s simply impossible to know why God would have allowed the neanderthals to die out. So similar to humans as they seemingly were, they may have lacked the fundamental traits that define humani generis. William King in 1864 offered the hypothesis that neanderthals lacked a moral sense or a capacity for theological concepts. If that be so, they would have passed from the scene with God’s permission since they lacked the necessary ingredients that merited their salvation. Competing with humans but without a moral sense it would have been imperative for humans to exterminate them as a threat to human survival. That some of their DNA survives through interbreeding with humans, at least until about 40,000 years ago, suggests the ongoing influence of neanderthals on the modern human scene. After all, look throughout history at all the great many godless killers without conscience.

 

[opusAquinas]

It’s simply impossible to know why God would have allowed the neanderthals to die out. So similar to humans as they seemingly were, they may have lacked the fundamental traits that define humani generis. William King in 1864 offered the hypothesis that neanderthals lacked a moral sense or a capacity for theological concepts. If that be so, they would have passed from the scene with God’s permission since they lacked the necessary ingredients that merited their salvation. Competing with humans but without a moral sense it would have been imperative for humans to exterminate them as a threat to human survival. That some of their DNA survives through interbreeding with humans, at least until about 40,000 years ago, suggests the ongoing influence of neanderthals on the modern human scene. After all, look throughout history at all the great many godless killers without conscience.

Either neaderthals had no souls or they did something evil and God did not want to save their souls and He did not want to keep them around.