From: martinharran@gmail.com   
      
   On Mon, 19 Jan 2026 19:36:50 +0000, Ernest Major   
   <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:   
      
   >On 19/01/2026 16:28, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >> On Sun, 18 Jan 2026 10:12:28 -0600, DB Cates    
   >> wrote:   
      
   [...]   
      
   >> None of which changes my original point that the 'mitochondrial Eve'   
   >> and 'Y-chromosome Adam' each confirm that humans are descended from a   
   >> single couple and there are multiple instances of that. I'm not sure   
   >> what the general scientific opinion was before they figured this out   
   >> but when this discussion about descent from a single couple first   
   >> arose here some years ago, Harshman and others argued that it was   
   >> genetically impossible.   
   >   
   >You are confusing descent from a single couple, and descent solely from   
   >a single couple.   
   >   
   >The Catholic Church has tied its colours to the mast of a literal Adam   
   >and Eve. There are two ways to interpret this. The first is descent from   
   >a single couple with interbreeding between their descendants and   
   >contemporaneous "false" humans. The second is descent solely from a   
   >single couple.   
   >   
   >The first is consistent with science. Estimates of the age of the MRCA   
   >of modern humans are even consistent with the Biblical timescale, though   
   >I doubt that the coalescence time for any bit of the genome is anywhere   
   >near that short. (Conceivably a selective sweep could have passed   
   >through the whole population recently, but that would require a strong,   
   >worldwide, selective pressure.) The second isn't. A bottleneck as narrow   
   >as two individuals would show up in the genome. Some parts of the genome   
   >(where diversity is maintained by frequency dependent selection) have   
   >coalescent dates older than the human/chimpanzee common ancestor, so one   
   >would have to recognise chimpanzees as "true humans", or resort to   
   >anti-scientific hypotheses of an omphalic nature.   
   >   
   >You have adopted the first.   
      
   Yes, and I regard that as totally compatible with Church teaching.   
      
   > At least some modern Catholic theologians   
   >have adopted the second.   
      
   Cite?   
      
   >   
   >The first has the unfortunate implication that the distinction between   
   >"true" humans and "false" humans is arbitrary. In the extreme case Adam   
   >is a true human, and his hypothetical identical twin brother isn't. (You   
   >could sort of fix that by postulating that the twin brother was a true   
   >human, but had no descendants; but if I recall correctly this would not   
   >be compatible with the wording of the relevant bull.) In any case you   
   >had for a considerable period of time a population composed of a mixture   
   >of true and false humans. The coalescence time for ancestry is short   
   >enough that period of time is now safely in the past. (Post-Columbian   
   >population movements have shortened the coalescence time for ancestry;   
   >600 years ago it may not have been compatible with the Biblical   
   >timescale.) I still think that the principle is one that one should not   
   >wish to adopt. The French author Jean Bruller (Vercors) wrote a novel   
   >(published in English as "Borderline" - and under other titles) in which   
   >the denouement was that religion was the marker that distinguished   
   >humans from non-humans - and that marker cut through a population of   
   >what I interpret to be erectus-grade humans.   
   >   
   >The second clashes with science.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>>   
      
   […]   
      
   >>> I was under the impression that the idea was that ensoulment was not   
   >>> passed on at all but rather was separate act of God in every case.   
   >>   
   >> Again, you are getting into complex theology which, TBH, is well   
   >> outside my knowledge zone. It's not the sort of stuff that I (or any   
   >> Catholics I know) spend any time thinking about.   
   >   
   >There are multiple positions with Christianity, but Catholicism adopts   
   >creationism - the position that each soul is created independently and   
   >directly by God. (It is heretical to say that the intellectual soul is   
   >transmitted by process of generation - Aquinas.) "Traducianism, which   
   >postulates a quasi-biological inheritance, makes the identification of   
   >"true" humans with the descendants of Adam less incoherent. Catholicism   
   >does however have an equivalent quasi-biological inheritance of Original   
   >Sin.   
      
   As I said, you are getting well into complex theology with all sorts   
   of ideas floating around with no apparent clear-cut consensus. Not   
   unlike some areas in science :)   
      
   […]   
      
      
   >>>>> Do you think that this viewpoint could be used (has been used?) to   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)