CatholicPlanet.Net discussion group  

Go Back   CatholicPlanet.Net discussion group > Catholic Continuing Education > Catholic Theology Q & A
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 6th October 2013, 11:56 PM
Rob Rob is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sicily, Italy
Posts: 966
Default

Of course my posting of the article was just to give a rough idea or age estimate of the MRCA (most recent common ancestor) of living men. But Adam and Eve must predate this age estimate otherwise we would have the paradox situation of having "lines" of humans not descendant from them which would have not fallen. But this is not possible.

Of course science cannot determine the exact moment behaviourally modern humans emerged.
__________________
For to me, to live is Christ; and to die is gain (Phil 1:21)

Last edited by Rob : 7th October 2013 at 12:01 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 7th October 2013, 12:56 AM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,567
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob View Post
Of course my posting of the article was just to give a rough idea or age estimate of the MRCA (most recent common ancestor) of living men. But Adam and Eve must predate this age estimate otherwise we would have the paradox situation of having "lines" of humans not descendant from them which would have not fallen. But this is not possible.

Of course science cannot determine the exact moment behaviourally modern humans emerged.

I see what you are saying. But I would disagree. The scientific determination of MRCA is only based on dna, not the origin of humanity with an immortal soul.

If God created Adam and Eve based on the pattern of anatomically modern humans (who lack immortal souls, free will, reason, and modern human behavior), then He could have used dna patterns that predate Adam and Eve. In fact, human dna has much in common with primate dna. So God did exactly that.

Thus the oldest y-chromosome or the oldest mitochondrial dna could be from anatomically modern humans, prior to Adam and Eve.

Also, I think that the universe became fallen when some of the angels fell from grace eons ago. So all the animals and plant life of earth has always been in a fallen state. The anatomically modern humans were merely animals, but they were fallen.
__________________
Ron Conte
Roman Catholic theologian
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 7th October 2013, 02:13 PM
Brother Brother is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,758
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Conte View Post
Then God created Adam and Eve, in paradise, not on earth; they were unfallen, so they lived in unfallen paradise. That place is discontinuous with this world; it is like earth but unfallen. Their bodies were patterned after the highest form of animal life on earth, anatomically modern humans. So they may well have had similar dna.

Then Adam and Eve fell from grace and were placed on earth.

I think that by the timeframe when Adam and Eve were expelled from Paradise to this already fallen earth, dinosaurs and prehistoric creatures alike, were already extinct on this earth (or at least, most of them).
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 7th October 2013, 04:26 PM
Rob Rob is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sicily, Italy
Posts: 966
Default

Ron, just to clarify some terms used here and in your article.

What exactly do you mean by behaviorally-modern humans and anatomically-modern humans?

Is a behaviorally modern human a man that shows signs of some kind of culture, for example the making of clay figurines or do we mean a man that has at least free will and reason but might not have necessarily developed skills in making tools yet?

What about anatomically-modern humans? Are we talking about few differences in anatomical structures or more?
__________________
For to me, to live is Christ; and to die is gain (Phil 1:21)
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 7th October 2013, 07:59 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,567
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob View Post
Ron, just to clarify some terms used here and in your article.

What exactly do you mean by behaviorally-modern humans and anatomically-modern humans?

Is a behaviorally modern human a man that shows signs of some kind of culture, for example the making of clay figurines or do we mean a man that has at least free will and reason but might not have necessarily developed skills in making tools yet?

What about anatomically-modern humans? Are we talking about few differences in anatomical structures or more?

The terms behaviorally-modern humans and anatomically-modern humans are used by anthropologists. I don't give the terms any different meaning. However, I propose that the anatomically-modern humans are animals lacking an immortal soul, reason, and free will. I further propose that what makes behaviorally-modern humans behave different is their immortal soul, reason, and free will.

See wikipedia and google on those terms:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomically_modern_humans
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_modernity
https://www.google.com/#q=behaviorally+modern+humans

The anatomically modern humans are nearly, but not exactly, like behaviorally-modern humans in their physical bodies.

Tool making and use is found in lower animals, so that would not be sufficient for behavioral modernity.

Wikipedia says: "Behavioral modernity is a term used in anthropology, archeology and sociology to refer to a set of traits that distinguish present day humans and their recent ancestors from both other living primates and other extinct hominid lineages. It is the point at which Homo sapiens began to demonstrate an ability to use complex symbolic thought and express cultural creativity. These developments are often thought to be associated with the origin of language.

"There are two main theories regarding when modern human behavior emerged. One theory holds that behavioral modernity occurred as a sudden event some 50 kya (50,000 years ago)"

I would emphasize language as the distinction between BMH and AMH. I would also agree with the "sudden event" theory, and reject the gradual accumulation theory. But from a religious point of view, I would say that the sudden event was the appearance on earth of Adam and Eve, humans with an immortal soul, reason and free will. These three things are needed to exercise complex symbolic thought and true language.

Did you read my two articles on Adam and Eve?
http://ronconte.wordpress.com/?s=anatomically
There is also some material in my book on Noah's Flood on this subject.
__________________
Ron Conte
Roman Catholic theologian
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 7th October 2013, 11:57 PM
Rob Rob is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sicily, Italy
Posts: 966
Default

Yes I did both of them, plus the on called "Is Creation in a Fallen State?"

http://ronconte.wordpress.com/2013/0...-fallen-state/


To describe in my own world what you define in your articles.

Adam and Eve were two real humans who were created an placed in Paradise which is not part of this world. When they fell from Grace they were placed in the fallen Earth entering a particular time and place. They gave rise to the behaviourally modern humans with Soul and Free Will which spread all across the globe to which we all are descendants of.

Having said that this does not exclude that on Earth there were already anatomically modern humans evolved from other species which however do not have free will and soul. From our point of view the earth could be fallen already before Adam and Eve were placed here on earth because their fall was beyond time and place. So it affected past, present and future. Is that correct?

Now my questions are: Are all current living human people exclusively descendants of Adam and Eve or can we hold also that some people descend from the already present anatomically modern humans?

Can we accept theories that allegedly say modern humans interbred with anatomically modern humans, ie. Neantherdals with Homo Sapiens, or Denisovans. If that is correct are we to place such interbredings before the placing of Adam and Eve on this planet or can we also hold the idea some descendants of Adam and Eve might have intrebred with them?
__________________
For to me, to live is Christ; and to die is gain (Phil 1:21)
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 8th October 2013, 01:58 AM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,567
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob View Post
Adam and Eve were two real humans who were created an placed in Paradise which is not part of this world. When they fell from Grace they were placed in the fallen Earth entering a particular time and place. They gave rise to the behaviourally modern humans with Soul and Free Will which spread all across the globe to which we all are descendants of.

Yes. So all human persons, in every ethic group, are descendents of Adam and Eve. All behaviorally modern humans came from Adam and Eve.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob View Post
Having said that this does not exclude that on Earth there were already anatomically modern humans evolved from other species which however do not have free will and soul. From our point of view the earth could be fallen already before Adam and Eve were placed here on earth because their fall was beyond time and place. So it affected past, present and future. Is that correct?

Well, my view is that Creation fell billions of years ago when some angels fell and became devils. Since angels have a role in guiding material creation, when they fell it was fitting that God would cause the fall of the universe. So that would imply that the earth was in a fallen state long before Adam and Eve.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob View Post
Now my questions are: Are all current living human people exclusively descendants of Adam and Eve or can we hold also that some people descend from the already present anatomically modern humans?

It is dogma that all human persons are descended from Adam and Eve. The so-called anatomically modern humans in my view are nothing more than the highest form of lower animals; they are not human persons, but only animals -- no immortal soul, no reason, no free will.

However, I think that God patterned the bodies of Adam and Eve after the AMHs, so the dna of Adam and Eve would have much common with the AMHs, even though God created Adam and Eve's bodies miraculously.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob View Post
Can we accept theories that allegedly say modern humans interbred with anatomically modern humans, ie. Neantherdals with Homo Sapiens, or Denisovans. If that is correct are we to place such interbredings before the placing of Adam and Eve on this planet or can we also hold the idea some descendants of Adam and Eve might have intrebred with them?

There were several different species (or subspecies?) of AMHs, which may have interbred to some extent. All BMHs are descended from Adam and Eve.

If any descendents of Adam and Eve bred with AMHs (before they went extinct), the children would have immortal souls (directly created by God) and reason and free will. I don't know if science is definitive that AMHs and BMHs interbred, but if so, it does not contradict my speculative position integrating Adam and Eve, with evolution and anthropology.
__________________
Ron Conte
Roman Catholic theologian
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 8th October 2013, 02:40 PM
Rob Rob is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sicily, Italy
Posts: 966
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Conte View Post

If any descendents of Adam and Eve bred with AMHs (before they went extinct), the children would have immortal souls (directly created by God) and reason and free will. I don't know if science is definitive that AMHs and BMHs interbred, but if so, it does not contradict my speculative position integrating Adam and Eve, with evolution and anthropology.

That is an interesting point you make. If such view is correct then we could in theory accept that some people descend patrilineally or matrilineally alone from an AMH's but then must have interbred with an BMH in order to get reason and free will. For example scientists have noticed that the oldest Y-DNA haplogroup called A is located in Africa. Among those that possess it are the san bushmen who are nomads. Through calculations they speculate that their line diverged from other men some 120,000 years ago, but this only on the paternal side. This could be a way to concile what you just stated with scientific evidence.

At that point however I understand would also be difficult to separate purely AMH's lines from BMH's lines if God used preexistent genetic material from AMH's in order to create a BMH's.

It is also true that all we know about BMH's is through archeology. The only way we can date the timespan for BHM's is through what ancient people left, ie. signs of culture. But there could be some older undiscovered sites of BMH's or the few that remained did not survive, which is a possibility if the first BMH's were a handful of people at beginning.

Thanks again for your explanations.
__________________
For to me, to live is Christ; and to die is gain (Phil 1:21)
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 8th October 2013, 03:49 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,567
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob View Post
That is an interesting point you make. If such view is correct then we could in theory accept that some people descend patrilineally or matrilineally alone from an AMH's but then must have interbred with an BMH in order to get reason and free will. For example scientists have noticed that the oldest Y-DNA haplogroup called A is located in Africa. Among those that possess it are the san bushmen who are nomads. Through calculations they speculate that their line diverged from other men some 120,000 years ago, but this only on the paternal side. This could be a way to concile what you just stated with scientific evidence.

I suggest that this oldest Y-dna haplogroup was found in Adam, because God based Adam's body on the pattern of the bodies of AMHs. It seems, as far as we now know, that interbreeding between AMH and BMHs was limited.

But this interbreding might be the explanation for Genesis 6:1-4, specifically that there were sons of God (BHMs) and sons of men (AMHs) who sometimes interbred.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob View Post
At that point however I understand would also be difficult to separate purely AMH's lines from BMH's lines if God used preexistent genetic material from AMH's in order to create a BMH's.

It is also true that all we know about BMH's is through archeology. The only way we can date the timespan for BHM's is through what ancient people left, ie. signs of culture. But there could be some older undiscovered sites of BMH's or the few that remained did not survive, which is a possibility if the first BMH's were a handful of people at beginning.

Some anthropologists put the number of BHMs (in the earliest time period for them, 70 to 50 ka) at only 5,000 to 10,000 individuals. It does not take long for a single couple, e.g. Adam and Eve, to produce thousands of descendants. If the population of each generation doubles (each pair of parents has 4 children who survive to reproduce) then it takes only 14 generations to reach 16,000 individuals in that most recent generation (plus those who are still alive from the previous generations). And if a generation is 20 to 30 years (from the birth of one generation to the birth of the next generation, not the lifespan of individuals), then it takes 280 to 420 years to go from a generation of two, to a generation of 16,000.

Archaeology is not capable (at this time) of distinguishing such a small span of events so long ago. That is why the origin of BHM is placed in a 20k time frame: 70 ka to 50 ka. So archaeology cannot disprove the idea that BMHs began with only two individuals.
__________________
Ron Conte
Roman Catholic theologian
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 8th October 2013, 04:05 PM
Rob Rob is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sicily, Italy
Posts: 966
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Conte View Post
Some anthropologists put the number of BHMs (in the earliest time period for them, 70 to 50 ka) at only 5,000 to 10,000 individuals. It does not take long for a single couple, e.g. Adam and Eve, to produce thousands of descendants. If the population of each generation doubles (each pair of parents has 4 children who survive to reproduce) then it takes only 14 generations to reach 16,000 individuals in that most recent generation (plus those who are still alive from the previous generations). And if a generation is 20 to 30 years (from the birth of one generation to the birth of the next generation, not the lifespan of individuals), then it takes 280 to 420 years to go from a generation of two, to a generation of 16,000.

Assuming there was no population bottleneck. There might have been past natural disasters which affected the size of population, so in order to reach such size even more time could have elapsed.
__________________
For to me, to live is Christ; and to die is gain (Phil 1:21)
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:02 AM.


Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.