filius_angelorum Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 This topic has never particularly worried me. A God that can make a few loaves and fishes feed 5,000 can also populate the earth with two people, even if they were only spiritually descended from the first two persons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted June 24, 2012 Author Share Posted June 24, 2012 bump for knight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 I'm on my phone and lazy right now, but I'm having my students read part of Humani generis this coming year. It speaks to some of the theological problems of human generation (hence the title). I'll post more soon, when I can read through a thread without lots of voices calling my attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted June 25, 2012 Author Share Posted June 25, 2012 [quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1340582329' post='2448451'] I'm on my phone and lazy right now, but I'm having my students read part of Humani generis this coming year. It speaks to some of the theological problems of human generation (hence the title). I'll post more soon, when I can read through a thread without lots of voices calling my attention. [/quote] I look forward to hearing what you have to say. Thanks, man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papist Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 It does not matter to me how God designed it. But when reflecting on monogenism vs polygenism, I lean on the Church for guidance. For example, "The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents" CCC 390 "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 parents 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 that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own" Pope Pius XII - Humani Generis 37 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted June 25, 2012 Author Share Posted June 25, 2012 If it's helpful at all here is a summary of some of the issues. The idea of a single breeding pair at the base of a human family tree is not plausible. We come from populations of prehistoric Homo sapiens that never numbered below several thousand. Also, it is highly likely that some human lineages have interbred with cousin species (subspecies if you prefer). For example, based on the Human and Neanderthal genome projects, non-Africans are basically a few percent Neanderthal. Similarly, Melanesians appear to be 4-6% Denisovan. And genetically speaking, there is no sharp line between humans and non-humans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papist Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 (edited) If this is of God's doing, can it not be plausible? I remember reading, about 10 years ago, that a geneticist, analyzed DNA from people in all regions of the world found all humans alive today are descended from a single man who lived in Africa around 60,000 years ago. I am trying to find the who that was. Edited June 25, 2012 by Papist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papist Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 Spencer Wells Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted June 25, 2012 Author Share Posted June 25, 2012 (edited) You're referring to Y-chromosomal Adam. Very razzle dazzle and fascinating stuff. However, Y-chromosomal Adam is just the patrilineal most recent common ancestor (incidentally, I think the best research puts the date at around 140 ka ago; I'm pretty sure 60 ka was the lower bound derived from the first rounds of research but it's since been worked out with more accuracy). The matrilineal most recent common ancestor lived much earlier. Making a connection with either of these ancestors and the biblical Adam and Eve is unfounded. There have been now dead human lineages with no connection to the MRCA of today's populations. I would again recommend Wade's [url="http://www.amazon.com/Before-Dawn-Recovering-History-Ancestors/dp/1594200793"][i]Before the Dawn[/i][/url] for an excellent light read on these topics. edit: minor typo. Edited June 25, 2012 by Laudate_Dominum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papist Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 Some times I think we humans think too much and put too much importance of such matters. Then, I also think God made things for us to discover. Some things easier to discover than others. Many times I have to catch myself becoming impatient when I want to the the answers to such mysteries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted June 25, 2012 Author Share Posted June 25, 2012 [quote name='Papist' timestamp='1340655501' post='2448767'] Some times I think we humans think too much and put too much importance of such matters. Then, I also think God made things for us to discover. Some things easier to discover than others. Many times I have to catch myself becoming impatient when I want to the the answers to such mysteries. [/quote] Amen, brother. Makes things interesting, at least. :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papist Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 [quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1340657578' post='2448784'] Amen, brother. Makes things interesting, at least. :-D [/quote] That's for sure. What I love is that the more we dig and discover the more we discover there is more to discover than we ever imagined. Friggin amesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted June 25, 2012 Author Share Posted June 25, 2012 [quote name='Papist' timestamp='1340662898' post='2448806'] That's for sure. What I love is that the more we dig and discover the more we discover there is more to discover than we ever imagined. Friggin amesome. [/quote] Yeah, I'm super curious to see what's out in the universe, on other planets and all that. I'm actually pretty into space stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papist Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 [quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1340664348' post='2448812'] Yeah, I'm super curious to see what's out in the universe, on other planets and all that. I'm actually pretty into space stuff. [/quote] Yes. I am so captivated by Saturn and it's rings. But now, I'm into putting my kids to bed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubertus Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 (edited) I once read a genetics thing that said that at one point in history, all humans alive were the ancestors of every single living being today.. meaning every one of the 7 billion people in the world today has the genes of Bob of X thousand years ago, and also Sally of X thousand years ago, and basically the rest of the population of X thousand years ago. Doesn't this lend to the fact that everyone alive today has a soul that was inherited from our ancestors? It may have been only one couple with souls at the time, but eventually, on down the line, it became the whole living population. Where's the conflict in that? I may have grossly misinterpreted what I read, though.. Genetics confuse me.. Edit: I just reread what I wrote, and I don't think I made any sense... Again, genetics confuse me.. Edited June 26, 2012 by Hubertus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now