The criteria of species...

[Laudate_Dominum]

This was discussed a little bit in previous threads but I'm still pondering the issues. One aspect of biology (and in particular paleoanthropology) that I have a hard time coming to grips with is the ambiguity of taxonomy.

What do you all think?

[Snarf]

I would say that the ability to create genetically viable offspring constitutes sharing a taxonimical species. However, to talk about paleoanthropology in a theological board makes certain implications (I guess I've missed the referred-to discussions) that we should question when Man became Adam. I personally believe that God breathed into man the breath of life within a relatively recent timeframe, but to retain the Catholicity of this belief I'd have to say that this first man was the progenitor of the entire modern human race.

Could this imply that there were numerous bloodlines of homo sapiens at the time of Adam, and by providence Adam's descendants married into each and every line of other peoples? That's something I've wondered for a long time, but speculation at this time is pretty narrow. For instance, I wondered where the wife of Seth came from in Genesis, and it makes perfectly good sense to me that she simply came from a line of humans not immediately related to Adam.

Any thoughts?

[Laudate_Dominum]

You're right about the impetus of my interest in this subject.

There is all that genetic research trying to construct a geneology that roots all races of humanity in a common ancestor. I believe these people say that genetic "Adam" lived around 60,000-80,000 years ago. But then there are the studies of mitochondrial DNA that suggest a common ancestor some 150,000 years ago. If I was a more zealous creationist I might assert that this genetic Adam is more likely Noah, and perhaps mitochondrial Eve is in fact Eve.

But this whole field is such a mess.. Almost everything I read contradicts other stuff that I've read.. Even on some of the most basic and foundational stuff scientists don't seem to agree. It is all so interpretive and conjectural..

What do you think of that genetic stuff? Btw, I consider Neanderthal to have been persons with souls and the like.

[Snarf]

What do you define as "neanderthal"? It's current theory that some lines of neanderthals were annihilated by rival hominids, while others coexisted peacefully and were able to interbreed. See my personal testimony:
[img]http://mypage.iu.edu/~stpace/pics/nseth.jpg[/img]

For no single reason, I think it's most sound to place a "genetic Adam" as late in history as possible. My gut instinct on this is that the Agricultural Revolution demonstrated a remarkable advancement in human forethought, which could very well imply a genetic disambiguation too minute for us to detect any time soon, that correlates to the advent of the soul. While I am extremely careful about citing Genesis as a history book, Adam, Abel, and Seth were referred to as farmers. It could be that this is a case of the Inspired Word giving us some clues about our past. Obviously there was a necessity for consistency in that no animals were carnivores before the Flood, according to Genesis, but what significance does THAT have, since it's obviously erroneous?

[Laudate_Dominum]

Whoa! I totally forgot about this goofy thread... How could I?

[quote name='Snarf' post='868469' date='Jan 28 2006, 05:20 AM']
What do you define as "neanderthal"? It's current theory that some lines of neanderthals were annihilated by rival hominids, while others coexisted peacefully and were able to interbreed.
[/quote]
I've looked over some of the evidence for that and I'm just not buying it. What seems like a more plausible primary cause of massive population decrease to me is some sort of disease epidemic. When you consider that the african and asian hominids would have no doubt had more robust immune systems, and would have been carrying new diseases, it seems like a much more intuitive assumption to me. I don't imagine our ancestors as pseudo-human and blood thirsty.

I don't doubt the fact that there was most likely inter-racial violence (I don't use the term species on purpose), but I can't buy the notion that this was on a genocidal level.
I also share the view that a remnant neanderthal population was eventually assimilated.

Actually I don’t like attempts to reduce complex phenomenon to simplistic causes. My current view is that the demise of Neanderthal was related to many factors: environmental changes, native diseases, foreign diseases, to some extent violence, interbreeding, etc., but if I were to pick one as the "big one" I would say disease.

Unfortunately I wasn't there so I can just make a quasi-educated guess.