Why didn't God save Neanderthals?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holyorders
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Vico said:
. . . “For some blood types, evolution and environmental selective pressures are clearly important for their persistence.” . . .]
Click to expand...
And, this is how indoctrination takes place, subtle poorly defined and understood assumptions inserted casually as if a mode of understanding the world were undeniable truth.
Environmental selective pressures are not the only “forces” that guide change. They could be in the widest sense of what constitutes environment, extending beyond merely physical processes.
The idea of environmental selection is a key component of the overall theory of evolution, so it is unclear to me why both terms are mentioned. It is redundant to do so, unless by “evolution” the author is implying, unscientifically imho, something external to the material driving change besides chance. If required at all, why wasn’t the word “random” used as it should have been? Bad writing perhaps. Maybe you could explain it to me if I have missed the point.
 
simpleas said:
. . . If we descended from two original humans wouldn’t we have the same blood type as each other? Is it something to do with environment, fighting certain diseases and such, which would alter blood types?. . .
Click to expand...
No, in a similar manner as to how we do not all look exactly the same, we have different blood types.

Some blood disorders are protective against other disease so they persist in the genetic pool.
Also, the ratios we find, result not only from strictly environmental pressures such as famine, disease and other natural calamities, but have been heavily influenced by human activity: love, war, politics/conquest.

Genetically, certain changes occur because of external physical causes such as radiation, chemical reactions and biological influences, viruses in particular.
Some, I believe through God’s intervention - as in creation.
 
davidv said:
So, this whole time we were using different meanings of “saved”?
I thought we were talking about saved = being in heaven.
Click to expand...
And I was referring to being saved as having descendants, as in how Israel has been saved, their descendants are still here.
 
Both the “avoiding extinction” sense of being saved and the "life eternal with God’ sense of being saved are of interest. Both are dealt with in a rather long but interesting article from which the following excerpts come:
inters.org/origin-nature-of-man
from
inters.org/interdisciplinary-encyclopedia
produced by the Advanced School for Interdisciplinary Research (ADSIR), operating at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross, Rome.

The Appearance of the Human Being and Human Spirituality. The Holy Scriptures tells that God has specifically intervened in the creation of the human being. Compared to the other creatures, he and she who were created “in the image and likeness of God” (Gn 1:26) bring with them a sort of “transcendence” originated by the spiritual principle animating them … if we accept the spirituality of the human being, we can not hold that such a “really human” being have evolved into his/her present form from animal ancestors simply through biological evolution. In this light, we are to admit “a peculiar intervention or at least special intentions” by God, which is what happens in the creation of every single human being: as a whole, a son is never the mere product of his parents, because the spiritual principle, the soul, simply can not be handed down from parents to children but implies the intervention of a God creator. A sort of analogy exists between the “animation” characterizing the process of generation [ensoulment of each individual human life] and the “hominization” occurring over the evolutionary process. This idea was reviewed by John Paul II in one of his Catechesis: “Evolution does not suffice to explain the origin of the human race, just as the biological causality of the parents alone cannot explain a baby’s birth. Even in the transcendence of his action, God is ever respectful of ‘secondary causes’ and creates the spiritual soul of a new human being by communicating the breath of life to him (see Gn 2:7) through his Spirit who is ‘the giver of life.’ Thus every child should be seen and accepted as a gift of the Holy Spirit” (John Paul II, General Audience, 27.5.1998).

… In this line of thought, hominization must have occurred the moment a brain organization able to support reflex psychism and thus the appearance of human life had been reached thanks to biological mutations. If the process of evolution is to be considered as a single, all-embracing divine action creating all forms of nature to subordinate them to their own laws and properties, then the action by which God creates the human soul and breaths the breath of life into the first human being should be considered as the culmination of all the process, whose sense is not so much clarified by an inevitable determinism, but by God’s specific project.
 
Vico said:
Scientists have identified 23 blood group systems (potentially hundreds of types). “For some blood types, evolution and environmental selective pressures are clearly important for their persistence.”

scientificamerican.com/article/why-do-people-have-differ/
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link, but it doesn’t really explain why there are different blood types. If like we believe, we had a first original male and female human from whom we come from, how did we end up with different looks, blood types etc. If there was only human to human contact from an original pair of humans wouldn’t we all look the same, where did the genetic change happen to include a different “make up” of looks and blood type?

Anyone know?
 
simpleas said:
Thanks for the link, but it doesn’t really explain why there are different blood types. If like we believe, we had a first original male and female human from whom we come from, how did we end up with different looks, blood types etc. If there was only human to human contact from an original pair of humans wouldn’t we all look the same, where did the genetic change happen to include a different “make up” of looks and blood type?

Anyone know?
Click to expand...
Immune system adaptation. For example type O survives Malaria since the particular sugar in type O is like teflon to Malaria. Malaria bonds strongly to type A. But O offers almost no immunity to cholera. Blood types A and B make people more resistant to cholera and type AB gives the most resistance. So different blood types have advantage in different environments where particular diseases occur.
 
Vico said:
Immune system adaptation. For example type O survives Malaria since the particular sugar in type O is like teflon to Malaria. Malaria bonds strongly to type A. But O offers almost no immunity to cholera. Blood types A and B make people more resistant to cholera and type AB gives the most resistance. So different blood types have advantage in different environments where particular diseases occur.
Click to expand...
Thanks.

I know we can have different blood type from our parents, I suppose even if A&E had the same blood type, if Eve came from Adam, then I would think she did, but then their children may not have had the same blood type as their parents.

And this is going off topic now…I will quit…😉
 
simpleas said:
. . . if Eve came from Adam, then I would think she did, . . .
Click to expand...
No, since recombination occurs during meiosis and mitosis in somatic cells in both sexual and asexual organisms, and since Eve had two x rather than an x and a y chromosome, I would expect differences if there were any possibility of a purely, strictly and completely biological way to make this happen.
Eve was created by God from Adam, but Genesis does not say any more (because it is unimportant to what scripture is meant to reveal).
 
Aloysium said:
And, this is how indoctrination takes place, subtle poorly defined and understood assumptions inserted casually as if a mode of understanding the world were undeniable truth.
Environmental selective pressures are not the only “forces” that guide change. They could be in the widest sense of what constitutes environment, extending beyond merely physical processes.
The idea of environmental selection is a key component of the overall theory of evolution, so it is unclear to me why both terms are mentioned. It is redundant to do so, unless by “evolution” the author is implying, unscientifically imho, something external to the material driving change besides chance. If required at all, why wasn’t the word “random” used as it should have been? Bad writing perhaps. Maybe you could explain it to me if I have missed the point.
Click to expand...
Re:
“For some blood types, evolution and environmental selective pressures are clearly important for their persistence.”
Click to expand...
The statement is about persistence. Selective pressure drives evolution but is not the same thing as evolution. Mutations are caused by random chance, but which mutations will become part of the genome will be determined by natural selection and the selective pressure from the environment.
 
Aloysium said:
No, since recombination occurs during meiosis and mitosis in somatic cells in both sexual and asexual organisms, and since Eve had two x rather than an x and a y chromosome, I would expect differences if there were any possibility of a purely, strictly and completely biological way to make this happen.
Eve was created by God from Adam, but Genesis does not say any more (because it is unimportant to what scripture is meant to reveal).
Click to expand...
This is admittedly off-topic, but can’t resist…
Since we Catholics are obliged to believe in a literal Adam and Eve, it is fair to speculate on how Eve’s body may have been generated out of Adam’s. I had a go at it and here’s what I conjectured:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=480699&highlight=bone
😉
 
 
simpleas said:
Thanks for the link, but it doesn’t really explain why there are different blood types. If like we believe, we had a first original male and female human from whom we come from, how did we end up with different looks, blood types etc. If there was only human to human contact from an original pair of humans wouldn’t we all look the same, where did the genetic change happen to include a different “make up” of looks and blood type?

Anyone know?
Click to expand...
Short answer: more than 100,000 years of evolution.
 
grannymh said:
Are there really people who have never heard of free speech? By the way, free speech does not have the power to change Catholic doctrines. Sorry about that, folks.
Click to expand...
You have not proven to us or to Cardinal Pell that a literal interpretation of Adam and Eve is infallible Catholic doctrine.
 
Tomdstone said:
You have not proven to us or to Cardinal Pell that a literal interpretation of Adam and Eve is infallible Catholic doctrine.
Click to expand...
Here’s a good resource material on what constitutes “infallible Catholic doctrine”:
ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/TRIGINFL.HTM
Here’s what seems to me to be the operative part:
“This formula makes it clear that definitive theological judgments of the ordinary magisterium, are every bit as binding in Faith as are exercises of the extraordinary magisterium. Both are protected by the Church’s charism of infallibility, exercised by those who hold supreme pastoral office in the Church (the Pope, or the College of Bishops in union with the Pope), so that the Church remains indefectibility in her faith and her sacraments — something absolutely necessary for her salvific mission, and guaranteed by Christ (cf. Mt. 28: 18-21).”
 
afthomercy said:
Here’s a good resource material on what constitutes “infallible Catholic doctrine”:
ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/TRIGINFL.HTM
Here’s what seems to me to be the operative part:
“This formula makes it clear that definitive theological judgments of the ordinary magisterium, are every bit as binding in Faith as are exercises of the extraordinary magisterium. Both are protected by the Church’s charism of infallibility, exercised by those who hold supreme pastoral office in the Church (the Pope, or the College of Bishops in union with the Pope), so that the Church remains indefectibility in her faith and her sacraments — something absolutely necessary for her salvific mission, and guaranteed by Christ (cf. Mt. 28: 18-21).”
Click to expand...
Where does this say that His Eminence Cardinal Pell was wrong when he said that the story of Adam and Eve does not have to be taken literally?
 
Tomdstone said:
You have not proven to us or to Cardinal Pell that a literal interpretation of Adam and Eve is infallible Catholic doctrine.
Click to expand...
What is Cardinal Pell’s CAF username?

If you do not have the Cardinal’s CAF username, then your request is not valid.

However, if you are interested in the reality of Adam … then your first step is to admit and agree to the proposition that God as Creator interacts with His human creatures. Of course, you may have all the time you need to figure out the importance of God interacting with His human creatures. I am looking forward to your response. 😃
 
Tomdstone said:
Where does this say that His Eminence Cardinal Pell was wrong when he said that the story of Adam and Eve does not have to be taken literally?
Click to expand...
Note to our gentle Readers. Regarding the importance of having Cardinal Pell’s words.

Please check the transcript of Cardinal Pell’s words in post 510. One needs the exact statements if one wishes to respond to questions. Or check this interpretation by reporter Nicolas Perpitch. And then go back to the transcript.
theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/adam-and-eve-thats-just-mythology-says-pell/story-e6frg6nf-1226322379822

If everything fails – it is up to Tomdstone to provide the exact quote, source, and citation for Cardinal Pell’s words in this direct question “Where does this say that His Eminence Cardinal Pell was wrong when **he said that the story of Adam and Eve does not have to be taken literally?” **

Interested readers certainly deserve to have the exact words of Cardinal Pell.

While it is interesting to read interpretations …
 
grannymh said:
Note to our gentle Readers. Regarding the importance of having Cardinal Pell’s words.

Please check the transcript of Cardinal Pell’s words in post 510. One needs the exact statements if one wishes to respond to questions. Or check this interpretation by reporter Nicolas Perpitch. And then go back to the transcript.
theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/adam-and-eve-thats-just-mythology-says-pell/story-e6frg6nf-1226322379822

If everything fails – it is up to Tomdstone to provide the exact quote, source, and citation for Cardinal Pell’s words in this direct question “Where does this say that His Eminence Cardinal Pell was wrong when **he said that the story of Adam and Eve does not have to be taken literally?” **

Interested readers certainly deserve to have the exact words of Cardinal Pell.

While it is interesting to read interpretations …
Click to expand...
It was a specific and pointed question that needed a straightforward answer, but unfortunately Cardinal Pell chose to use circumlocution. The average viewer/listener/reader could be forgiven for coming to the conclusion that the story of Adam and Eve is not a literal truth in Pell’s eyes, especially since he said that A & E are “terms” and just a little earlier in the programme he had expressed his belief in descent from the neanderthals. How I wish that Dawkins’ immediate next question on the implications (of the non-existence of A&E) for Original Sin was answered by Cardinal Pell, but unfortunately it got lost in the flow of the conversation.

What I dearly want to know is whether there has been any subsequent clarification by Cardinal Pell especially since this particular answer of his generated such a storm in the Christian world?

The relevant transcript extract is reproduced below:
TONY JONES: So are you talking about a kind of Garden of Eden scenario with an actual Adam and Eve?

GEORGE PELL: Well, Adam and Eve are terms - what do they mean: life and earth. It’s like every man. That’s a beautiful, sophisticated, mythological account. It’s not science but it’s there to tell us two or three things. First of all that God created the world and the universe. Secondly, that the key to the whole of universe, the really significant thing, are humans and, thirdly, it is a very sophisticated mythology to try to explain the evil and suffering in the world.

TONY JONES: But it isn’t a literal truth. You shouldn’t see it in any way as being an historical or literal truth?

GEORGE PELL: It’s certainly not a scientific truth and it’s a religious story told for religious purposes.

TONY JONES: Just quickly, because the Old Testament in particular is full of these kind of stories, I mean is there a point where you distinguish between metaphor and reality? For example, Moses receiving the Ten Commandments inscribed directly by God on a mountain?

GEORGE PELL: I’m not sure that the Old Testament says that God inscribed the Ten Commandments but leaving that aside it’s difficult to know how exactly that worked but Moses was a great man. There was a great encounter with the divine. Actually, with Moses we get the key that enables us to come together with the Greeks with reason because Moses said who will I tell the Egyptians and he tell that my name is “I am who I am”.

TONY JONES: Okay, I’m just going to…

GEORGE PELL: And we’ll come back to that.

TONY JONES: I’m just going to bring Richard Dawkins back in here because we’ve moved from evolution obviously to the biblical versions of it. Your response.

RICHARD DAWKINS: Well, I’m curious to know if Adam and Eve never existed where did original sin come from? But I also would like to clarify the point about whether there was ever a first human…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top