Will humans eventually be an ascendant of another species...

[hsilgne]

I think the issue for Catholic theology is not a six day creation (Augustine didn't interpret the day literally) or even how Adam and Eve were created. The sticking point is the fall and original sin which came as a result of the fall and affects all mankind.

The Church does not take an official position on the interpretation of time in Genesis, ie a literal 6 day time frame, however the Church does take an official position on original man and woman(monogenism vs. polygenism). And yes, you are correct, this is based on the theology of "original sin".

From "Humani Generis - 37", His Holiness, Pope Pius XII states:

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 no 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]

This is only brought to attention for my(or perhaps other Catholics) sake. Polygenism is not an option for, as His Holiness says, "the children of the Church" - that's me - .

 

[hsilgne]

Thank you all for responding.


I need to address some things before moving forward. One thing is, the suggestion that it is the genetic info from the female that produces a "new" lineage.

How does a theistic evolutionist reconcile this with Genesis, specifically, how God describes woman being created from man?

Thank you in advance.

Peace.

 

[gluadys]

Another factor to look at is we are only tracing the mitochondria which are passed down (usually) through the female line. Lets say there is another woman around at the time of mitochondrial Eve, lets call her Lilith

Lilith and Eve had loads of children and their children had gave them grandchildren and great grandchildren... But if we we trace every line descended from Lilith, at some stage down along there are no daughters. Only Lilith's great[sup]n[/sup] grandsons carry on the line. The sons only thing needn't all happen in the same generation, but it does happen at some stage to every line.

If this is the case then while Lilith has plenty of descendants, none of her mitochondria have been passed on. If we knew how to search we could find copies of her X chromosomes and copies of lots of her other chromosomes too. But the only mitochondria will come from Eve. Eve is the common mitochondrial ancestry for everyone.

Incorrect. This implies that men do not have mitochondria. Men do have mitochondria in their cells--which they inherit from their mothers. So mitochondrial Eve is the last common maternal ancestor of all living men as well as of all living women.

OTOH, Y-chromosome Adam is only the last common ancestor of all living men, since only men inherit or pass on a Y chromosome. But both men and women inherit mitochondria, but men do not pass them on to their children.

 

[gluadys]

Thank you all for responding.


I need to address some things before moving forward. One thing is, the suggestion that it is the genetic info from the female that produces a "new" lineage.

No. This only appears to be so because we have been dealing with the inheritance of mitochondria, which are always passed on through the maternal line. It doesn't necessarily apply to the whole genetic inheritance of a person. We are all children of two parents, not just one.

How does a theistic evolutionist reconcile this with Genesis, specifically, how God describes woman being created from man?

Thank you in advance.

Peace.

I would consider that to be a mythological description of the origin of women, more important for its moral teaching on marriage than its scientific (in)accuracy.

Biologically, sexual differentiation was already part of human heritage long before there were humans.

 

[Mallon]

One thing is, the suggestion that it is the genetic info from the female that produces a "new" lineage.

Gluadys answered this question quite well.
I will point out, however, that new lineages are formed virtually everytime new offspring are produced. Take this, for example:

You can see both brothers Alexander and Edmund sire offspring of their own, which effectively splits the tree into two branches. Each of these offspring then go on to have offspring of their own, creating more and more branching events. At each branching event, a new 'lineage' is effectively created.
This small-scale branching happens at larger scales, too... at the species level, for example. There is no magical barrier to this sort of branching (contrary to what most anti-evolutionists insist).

How does a theistic evolutionist reconcile this with Genesis, specifically, how God describes woman being created from man?

Most TEs don't try to reconciel Genesis with any sort of science. Those ancient Hebrew authors knew nothing of science, so they simply depicted the creation of man through a beautiful-yet-effective myth. Speaking in myths was the norm at the time, and this one in particular conveys the spiritual truths God inspired and intended.

 

[hsilgne]

No. This only appears to be so because we have been dealing with the inheritance of mitochondria, which are always passed on through the maternal line. It doesn't necessarily apply to the whole genetic inheritance of a person. We are all children of two parents, not just one.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Here's another question. Although this is a more theological question for TE's.

How does original sin and seperation from God "fit" into evolution?

 

[Assyrian]

Incorrect. This implies that men do not have mitochondria. Men do have mitochondria in their cells--which they inherit from their mothers. So mitochondrial Eve is the last common maternal ancestor of all living men as well as of all living women.

OTOH, Y-chromosome Adam is only the last common ancestor of all living men, since only men inherit or pass on a Y chromosome. But both men and women inherit mitochondria, but men do not pass them on to their children.

I probably phrased it badly. We all get our mitochondria from our mums, but the line of inheritance is through the females. Boys do get mitochondria but don't pass them on.

I threw in a 'usually' because there has been the suggestion that this is not always the case and sometimes the father's mitochondria manage to slip through the net and muck up mDNA analysis. Have you heard any more of that?

 

[Assyrian]

How does a theistic evolutionist reconcile this with Genesis, specifically, how God describes woman being created from man?

I would say Genesis itself interprets the description as a metaphor for marriage. Gen 2:24 Therefore a man will leave his father and his mother, and will join with his wife, and they will be one flesh. A man and woman become one flesh as Adam and Eve were shown to be one flesh in the story. Interestingly the only time Jesus quotes the creation account it is as an illustration of God's plan for marriage.

If you wanted to interpret it biologically, it would not be that difficult to clone a woman from a man. All you would need to do is get rid of the Y chromosome and give her two copies of the X. But we are talking very limited gene pool here. What do the rules on consanguinity say about identical twins?

Here's another question. Although this is a more theological question for TE's.

How does original sin and seperation from God "fit" into evolution?

I don't think the question has anything to do with evolution. Genetics possibly, but the question of how Original Sin is inherited goes back to the time of Augustine. The fact that we know how traits are inherited further complicates the issue.

I would say we are seperated from God by our own sin, not some distant ancestor. Rom 7:9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.

 

[shernren]

By the by, XD is a wild-eyed laugh. Look at it sideways, the same way you would look at =D, and then imagine screwed-up eyes like >,< ...

XD

Thanks for clearing that up.

Here's another question. Although this is a more theological question for TE's.

How does original sin and seperation from God "fit" into evolution?

It isn't really difficult to "fit" them together. The word "fit" seems to suggest some sort of incompatibility where you have to jiggle and manipulate and squeeze the two parts a little before they finally fit together. Well, I don't think that is the case.

Evolution is a mechanistic theory about the biological origins of humanity.
Original sin (if you accept it; some don't) and separation from God are descriptions of humanity's significance to God.

Here's a rather crude metaphor: cars are produced on assembly lines, and if I want to know about how cars are made I go visit assembly lines and see how assembly line workers do their job. But why do people like cars? If I like my car, it probably has nothing to do with the fact that it was produced in a factory in XXX city, on a 12-step, automated, state-of-the-art, spanking shiny assembly line, etc. etc. It may not even have anything to do with the physical characteristics of the car. It may be that I like my car, say, because it was my 21st birthday present from my dad. (My dad doesn't come to CF.com, but in case he pops by: hint hint. kidding!) Or it may be that I like my car because it's painted in shocking lime green, and the exact same car painted a dull black wouldn't excite any of my interest at all.

See? Why my car is significant to me can well have nothing to do with how my car was produced, although in some cases it can. I think it's roughly the same in terms of evolution and sin. The biological processes that produced man may well have little or nothing to do with why we are significant in God's eyes and what sin does to us.

 

[gluadys]

Thanks for clearing that up.

Here's another question. Although this is a more theological question for TE's.

How does original sin and seperation from God "fit" into evolution?

I think the point is that science and theology are different domains of knowledge. We should not try to fit theology into science, nor try to fit science into theology. But we should respect the truth of both.

Problems arise when we try to interpret the bible scientifically instead of theologically. Also when we try to draw theological messages from science.

As for original sin, as a Catholic you should know better than to confuse it with the first sin. We are all subject to original sin--the propensity to sin. And, in a sense, we inherit it. But not genetically.

Genetic or biological inheritance is only one kind of inheritance. We may inherit property too, and possibly from our parents. But we can also inherit property from someone who is not related to us biologically (at least not closely enough to think of as family). We inherit the first language we speak too, but if we were adopted at 3 months of age, we will inherit the language of our adoptive parents, not of our birth parents.

We had to have a spiritual relationship with God before we could be separated from God. However we lost it, whoever was the first to commit sin, whenever it happened, is really immaterial. The point is that we are now separated from God, and that is now part of the human condition into which we are born. But it is entirely a spiritual matter, not a biological matter.

 

[gluadys]

I probably phrased it badly. We all get our mitochondria from our mums, but the line of inheritance is through the females. Boys do get mitochondria but don't pass them on.

I threw in a 'usually' because there has been the suggestion that this is not always the case and sometimes the father's mitochondria manage to slip through the net and muck up mDNA analysis. Have you heard any more of that?

No, I hadn't heard that. Creates some interesting questions.

 

[Assyrian]

I think I may have read something in New Scientist a while back, but a quick Google of 'paternal mitochondrial DNA' seems to indicate it is a hot, and disputed, topic.

 

[hsilgne]

As for original sin, as a Catholic you should know better than to confuse it with the first sin. We are all subject to original sin--the propensity to sin. And, in a sense, we inherit it. But not genetically.

I'm sorry, you are mistaken. As I pointed to earlier, this is not acceptible as a Catholic. See the quote below...

HUMANI GENERIS
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XII​

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.

That said, I know there are many many Catholics who adhere to Theistic Evolution. It would be nice if one of them chimed in.

 

[Xaero]

I think I may have read something in New Scientist a while back, but a quick Google of 'paternal mitochondrial DNA' seems to indicate it is a hot, and disputed, topic.

Normally paternal mtDNA gets degraded after the sperm enters the oocyte, but this differs between species:

Further evidence for paternal inheritance of mitochondrial DNA in the sheep
http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v93/n4/full/6800516a.html

Implications for the Mechanism of Doubly Uniparental Inheritance of Mitochondrial DNA (in mussels)
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/148/1/341

However, no paternal inheritance of mtDNA in humans could be verified at this time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternal_mtDNA_transmission

 

[hsilgne]

What was the "last developement" in human evolution that made the first humans human?

Thank You.

 

[Deamiter]

What was the "last developement" in human evolution that made the first humans human?

Thank You.

What a great question! Unfortunately, I think you'll find quite a range of answers to this one as it's more philosophical than scientific.

Your question begs the question, "what makes a human human?" For many Christians it is a soul -- an undetectable (so far anyway -- but I at least understand it as supernatural and thus undetectable via science) part of us that is directly God-given to each. I don't really think it is evolved though I think God certainly could have given it to us that way. My opinion is that our "soul" is the part of humans that was created in God's image.

But if you're talking strictly about evolution, you'd want to look at morphology. Since evolution is ongoing in every species simultaneously, I don't think it makes much sense to talk about the "last development." Scientists tend to talk about a list of features that make humans mammals, and apes, and then human -- in each case, the list of features is common among all those in the catagory but not found outside the catagory.

For example, we are apes because we have opposable thumbs and hair all over our bodies. We are mammals because we have mammary glands and are warm-blooded.

 

[hsilgne]

Is it wrong to assume that the first humans had a physical "trait" that was different from "its" parents?
In other words, is this a wrong assumption...
A male and female "prehuman" gave birth to a human.

 

[gluadys]

Is it wrong to assume that the first humans had a physical "trait" that was different from "its" parents?
In other words, is this a wrong assumption...
A male and female "prehuman" gave birth to a human.

Hard to say as it would be a matter of opinion as to how many and which human characteristics are needed to qualify a species as human. When we rely on morphology as a guide, there is no hard and fast dividing line between human and pre-human.

And, of course, with fossils, we have insufficient information on whether or not any human/near-human species could or did interbreed, so we can't use a biological species boundary either

At the same time there is no morphological guide to the appearance of consciousness or soul. So if that is the criterion of humanness, we still can't say at what point it came into being.

All we can say for certain is that when the fossils are placed in the chronological order indicated by their stratigraphy, we see a gradation from ancestral ape to modern human characteristics. With near-human species we also often have cultural artifacts that also show increasing sophistication. Does that make those who produced them human?

Depends on how you define "human".

 

[hsilgne]

All we can say for certain is that when the fossils are placed in the chronological order indicated by their stratigraphy, we see a gradation from ancestral ape to modern human characteristics.

Do you have a source(preferably a web source) you can provide for this evidence?

Thanks for your help!

 

[Deamiter]

One very VERY common misconception about evolution is that at some point, a baby was born that was not the same species as its parents. This is not the case.

Each pair of parents produces an offspring that is made up of a combination of the parents' genes. No a cat will never give birth to a dog or a banana turn into a human. What DOES happen is that a population will split and many years later (centuries, millenia etc...) they will each have accumulated unique mutations. Eventually, there are so many mutations that the populations no longer recognize each other as the same species -- or even more finally, they are no longer able to interbreed.

Nowhere in the process of speciation (of which both mechanisms -- refusal to breed and inability to breed -- have been observed, though obviously the former is more common) can a clear line be drawn where the original species splits into two.

As an (admittedly imperfect) example, it's a bit like taking a glass of water with yellow food coloring and splitting it into two glasses to simulate the population being split by geography. Then you slowly add red food coloring to one glass and blue food coloring to the other glass. There is no point at which you can REALLY well define when one hits orange and the other hits green... but in the end there is no question that the two glasses are both different colors.

Similarly, for the sake of clarity, scientists define morphological traits that accompany different species and then trace each species back to common ancestors. If the scientists were watching the populations for millions of years, they could not point to any single organism that is a different species than its parents, but after millions of years, the distinct populations can no longer interbreed -- it IS obvious that they are different species.