tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3483274485929133507.post918271941117167151..comments2023-09-02T06:15:58.305-05:00Comments on Under A Chindolea: Faith and Science: A QuestionNathan O'Halloran, SJhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08672001160647592501noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3483274485929133507.post-32670804930414401412009-03-26T08:36:00.000-05:002009-03-26T08:36:00.000-05:00Ok, more ignorance from me, but I don't have much ...Ok, more ignorance from me, but I don't have much time to look these things up. How did the female line of homo sapiens reproduce themselves without the male line? Did they reproduce with another species? How does that work? <BR/><BR/>Nathan O'Halloran, SJNathan O'Halloran, SJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08672001160647592501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3483274485929133507.post-3901680088098418532009-03-19T08:47:00.000-05:002009-03-19T08:47:00.000-05:00Nathan, that’s fascinating about Collins. Why is ...Nathan, that’s fascinating about Collins. Why is this not more publicized? Michael Behe makes the “speciation has not happened” yet argument in his talks and I assumed he was right because he debunks the examples that people say “proves” it’s taken place and people like Miller from Brown have supposedly refused to debate him. That being said, I’m not an ID person myself but…<BR/><BR/>Also, how does the same genetic mutation happen in thousands at the same time? It seems counter-intuitive.Donatohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11262313153722995417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3483274485929133507.post-826675633380448642009-03-18T23:11:00.000-05:002009-03-18T23:11:00.000-05:00Wells was a co-contributor with Collins on the pap...Wells was a co-contributor with Collins on the paper that was presented describing how the human genome was finally mapped during the late 90s.<BR/><BR/>If you check the Wiki on polygenism/polygenesis, you'll see it's not got much street cred as a theory. In addition, there's a useful pointer there to Humani Generis, which explicitly condemns the view of multiple human populations having evolved in parallel, roughly simultaneously. <BR/><BR/>One caveat though: The mtDNA which is passed along via the female line of homo sapiens developed 170,000 years ago. However, the male progenitor of the modern human Y chromosome came much later, at around 60,000 years ago. Thus, there's a gap of 100K years and this is attributable to the sexual selection politics of the distant past. <BR/><BR/>I point it out because it does put a wrinkle in the Adam/Eve hypothesis, since Eve was long dead when Adam rolled around. However, if one remembers that at some point X/Y did meet (say, 60,000 B.C.), then it's not any problem at all to see a very rough continuity between mainstream genetics and the Bible's assertion of a pair of first parents, from whom all humans are descended. <BR/><BR/>I think if you do further research on mitochondrial Eve and the seven daughters of Eve, you'll find that most scientific literature assumes individuals and not populations as the source of the mutations which have gone into defining modern humans.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3483274485929133507.post-19310035203588663112009-03-18T19:59:00.000-05:002009-03-18T19:59:00.000-05:00BCatholic, I believe that several instances of spe...BCatholic, <BR/>I believe that several instances of speciation have been now observed. Francis Collins in his book deals with the ID argument that speciation is still yet to be actually proven as a phenomenon. <BR/><BR/>The issue of Original Sin has plagued me for a long time, all the way since high school when I began to read up at the level I was at on the problem. I continue to find it a very difficult concept, as do most people I expect. Thanks for including Benedict's comments. <BR/><BR/>Anonymous,<BR/>Thanks for the quote. I am not well read up on this, so I appreciate any help. <BR/><BR/>Nathan O'Halloran, SJNathan O'Halloran, SJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08672001160647592501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3483274485929133507.post-69693021120043905882009-03-17T19:32:00.000-05:002009-03-17T19:32:00.000-05:00I think polygenesis is unlikely."Any piece of DNA ...I think polygenesis is unlikely.<BR/><BR/>"Any piece of DNA that is not shuffled through the action of recombination can be traced back in time to an earlier ancestor. There are 6.5 billion such pieces of mtDNA today and around half that number of Y chromosomes; all of them can be traced back to a sole root. This entity, known as the coalescence point, is the single mtDNA or Y-chromosome type from which they all trace their descent. In any given sample of nonrecombining DNA sequences there must be a single ancestor at some point in the past."<BR/><BR/>Darwin entertained the possibility of polygenesis in his survey of electric fish; the dispersion of six species around the globe suggested to him the possibility of natural conditions having created similar traits w/o there being a common ancestor.<BR/><BR/>However, I think as genetics has gotten more study, the possibility of random mutations -- the kind which have formed homo sapiens -- occurring in multiple, separated populations is remote. Like, the odds are incredibly stacked against such an event taking place in a higher life form. Think lottery across several states.<BR/><BR/>But I'm not a geneticist, so take with a grain of salt. The quote is from a book by Spencer Wells, author and the film maker behind Journey of Man.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3483274485929133507.post-600159277591667772009-03-17T18:49:00.000-05:002009-03-17T18:49:00.000-05:00This is also a question that has caused me a great...This is also a question that has caused me a great deal of confusion. In 1986, Joseph Ratzinger published a commentary on Genesis 1-3 called "'In the Beginning....' : A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall." In this work he touches upon the question of Original Sin. What is it? How did it happen? How does it effect me? Here is an excerpt:<BR/> <BR/><BR/>"In the Genesis story that we are considering, still a further characteristic of sin is described. Sin is not spoken of in general as an abstract possibility but as a deed, as the sin of a particular person, Adam, who stands at the origin of humankind and with whom the history of sin begins. The account tells us that sin begets sin, and that therefore all the sins of history are interlinked. Theology refers to this state of affairs by the certainly misleading and imprecise term 'original sin.' What does this mean? Nothing seems to us today to be stranger or, indeed, more absurd than to insist upon original sin, since, according to our way of thinking, guilt can only be something very personal, and since God does not run a concentration camp, in which one's relative are imprisoned, because he is a liberating God of love, who calls each one by name. What does original sin mean, then, when we interpret it correctly?<BR/> <BR/>Finding an answer to this requires nothing less than trying to understand the human person better. It must once again be stressed that no human being is closed in upon himself or herself and that no one can live of or for himself or herself alone. We receive our life not only at the moment of birth but every day from without--from others who are not ourselves but who nonetheless somehow pertain to us. Human beings have their selves not only in themselves but also outside of themselves: they live in those whom they love and in those who love them and to whom they are 'present.' Human beings are relational, and they possess their lives--themselves--only by way of relationship. I alone am not myself, but only in and with you am I myself. To be truly a human being means to be related in love, to be of and for. But sin means the damaging or the destruction of relationality. Sin is a rejection of relationality because it wants to make the human being a god. Sin is loss of relationship, disturbance of relationship, and therefore it is not restricted to the individual. When I destroy a relationship, then this event--sin--touches the other person involved in the relationship. Consequently sin is always an offense that touches others, that alters the world and damages it. To the extent that this is true, when the network of human relationships is damaged from the very beginning, then every human being enters into a world that is marked by relational damage. At the very moment that a person begins human existence, which is a good, he or she is confronted by a sin-damaged world. Each of us enters into a situation in which relationality has been hurt. Consequently each person is, from the very start, damaged in relationships and does not engage in them as he or she ought. Sin pursues the human being, and he or she capitulates to it.<BR/> <BR/>But from this it is also clear that human beings alone cannot save themselves. Their innate error is precisely that they want to do this by themselves. We can only be saved – that is, be free and true – when we stop wanting to be God and when we renounce the madness of autonomy and self-sufficiency. We can only be saved – that is, become ourselves – when we engage in the proper relationship. But our interpersonal relationships occur in the context of our utter creatureliness, and it is there that damage lies. Since the relationship with creation has been damaged, only the Creator himself can be our savior. We can be saved only when he from whom we have cut ourselves off takes the initiative with us and stretches out his hand to us. Only being loved is being saved, and only God's love can purify damaged human love and radically reestablish the network of relationships that have suffered from alienation. (pg. 74)"<BR/><BR/>This doesn't address the question of polygenism but it does shed some light on the discussion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3483274485929133507.post-71514133899771608882009-03-17T09:38:00.000-05:002009-03-17T09:38:00.000-05:00If there were a whole class of people at the begin...If there were a whole class of people at the beginning who did sin as adam and eve did then there must be a consequence due to their sin that would merit death. Or else they would not have died in the flood. To presume that they all sinned in the same way (a sin that would merit the same consequence) is interesting. As far as Cain and his situation I agree that it is not inconsistent with a single Adam and Eve seeing as though Adam and Eve had many more children after Seth.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3483274485929133507.post-22285579007824412382009-03-17T08:43:00.000-05:002009-03-17T08:43:00.000-05:00I remember watching a documentary called "The Real...I remember watching a documentary called "The Real Eve" on the Discovery Channel a decade ago. Using our genes, they showed how we all come from one single woman, but then said something like , "This is probably more like how every person in a village, after a few centuries, ends up with the same last name. It's doubtful that we all come from one single human parent." They made this assertion and never proved it. <BR/><BR/>Seeing as we've never witnessed a new species arise out of evolution, our guess that 10,000 arise at the same time seems as probably as two arising. <BR/><BR/>Either way, I'm not too worried about it. We have imperfect knowledge of science in this world...Donatohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11262313153722995417noreply@blogger.com