B
buffalo
Guest
I know of no magisterial document which states affirmatively that one can believe in theistic evolution that permits polygenism.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
E
EphelDuath
Guest
Considering modern biologists don’t believe in polygenism either, I don’t see where the difficulty lay.I know of no magisterial document which states affirmatively that one can believe in theistic evolution that permits polygenism.
B
buffalo
Guest
Have you been following the threads? There are a bunch of them here who insist that it is impossible for us to have descended from an original pair. If you share with me some sources that would be a great refutation we could use.Considering modern biologists don’t believe in polygenism either, I don’t see where the difficulty lay.
E
EphelDuath
Guest
Jimmy Akin wrote an article on the subject: jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/10/monogenism_scie.htmlHave you been following the threads? There are a bunch of them here who insist that it is impossible for us to have descended from an original pair. If you share with me some sources that would be a great refutation we could use.
B
buffalo
Guest
I have read that one and have linked it in the past. I was looking for something peer reviewed.Jimmy Akin wrote an article on the subject: jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/10/monogenism_scie.html
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Correct: it is not possible that the number of breeding human ancestral pairs ever fell to one, as it would have to have done twice (Adam and Noah). But in any case, this does not creat an insurmounatble theological problem for non-biblical-literalists.Have you been following the threads? There are a bunch of them here who insist that it is impossible for us to have descended from an original pair. If you share with me some sources that would be a great refutation we could use.
E
EphelDuath
Guest
Citation needed.Correct: it is not possible that the number of breeding human ancestral pairs ever fell to one
S
StAnastasia
Guest
“The problem is that science has now shown that monogenism ― in the sense of the descent of our entire species from one set of parents, Adam and Eve ― is genetically impossible. In-breeding reduces population viability because the resulting lack of genetic diversity makes the population more susceptible to disease and trauma. When a species falls below a certain threshold of breeding pairs, it reaches what is called a “genetic bottleneck,” carrying the risk that the population will suffer irreversible genetic degradation. Humans appear not to have suffered catastrophic bottlenecks within the last ten thousand years, although the climatic results of Sumatra’s Mt. Toba eruption were severe enough to reduce the population significantly. It is estimated by some that the minimum population during the tens of thousands of years of it took hominids to evolve into full human consciousness was between 3,000 and 10,000 breeding pairs.”Citation needed.
References:
“The European bison, the cheetah, and the giant panda are all animals with very low heterzygosity, and thus are suffering severe bottlenecks. See Ridley, Evolution 3rd. ed., (Blackwell Publishing), 151 - 153; Menotti-Raymond and O’Brien, “Dating the Genetic Bottleneck of the African cheetah,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 90, 3172-3176, (1993).”
John Hawks, et al. “Population Bottlenecks and Pleistocene Human Evolution,” Molecular Biology and Evolution 17:2-22 (2000); Xiong et al, “No severe bottleneck during human evolution; evidence from two apolipoprotein C II alleles’, Am J Hum Genet 48, 383 -389.
Stanley H. Ambrose (1998). “Late Pleistocene human population bottlenecks, volcanic winter, and differentiation of modern humans” Journal of Human Evolution 34 (6): 623–651.
Alec MacAndrew, “Misconceptions around Mitochondrial Eve: A Critique of Carl Wieland’s AiG article on Mitochondrial Eve,” at evolutionpages.com/Mitochondrial%20Eve.htm.
E
EphelDuath
Guest
You’re equivocating on the use of the term “human being.” Not even regarding how specific you want to be in what constitutes a “human” (both in a biological and metaphysical sense), since genetic mutations don’t happen in an entire species instantaneously but in each particular organism, it’s impossible to suggest that there wasn’t at some point one pair of “human beings.”
S
StAnastasia
Guest
No, it’s not impossible at all. Homo sapiens emerged collectivley from its prehuman hominid past. “Adam and Eve” refer symbolically to the emerging human species as a whole, “called forth” by God into moral and spiritual awareness.You’re equivocating on the use of the term “human being.” Not even regarding how specific you want to be in what constitutes a “human” (both in a biological and metaphysical sense), since genetic mutations don’t happen in an entire species instantaneously but in each particular organism, it’s impossible to suggest that there wasn’t at some point one pair of “human beings.”
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Citation provided. You’re welcome.Citation needed.
E
EphelDuath
Guest
Then you are suggesting that the same genetic mutation occurred in two individuals at the same time, which is statistically so unlikely that there’s not much I can say.No, it’s not impossible at all. Homo sapiens emerged collectivley from its prehuman hominid past.
Yes, this is true, but this has no bearing on the fact that polygenism is a rather discredited biological theory.“Adam and Eve” refer symbolically to the emerging human species as a whole, “called forth” by God into moral and spiritual awareness.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
(1) I said nothing about “the same genetic mutation occurring in two individuals at the same time”Then you are suggesting that the same genetic mutation occurred in two individuals at the same time, which is statistically so unlikely that there’s not much I can say. Yes, this is true, but this has no bearing on the fact that polygenism is a rather discredited biological theory.
(2) I said nothing about polygenism
E
EphelDuath
Guest
Then explain how it is possible that “Homo sapiens emerged collectivley [sic] from its prehuman hominid past.”(1) I said nothing about “the same genetic mutation occurring in two individuals at the same time”
You certainly implied it when you said that “it is not possible that the number of breeding human ancestral pairs ever fell to one.”(2) I said nothing about polygenism
S
StAnastasia
Guest
(1) I don’t think you understand what polygenism is. You may read about it here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolygenismThen explain how it is possible that “Homo sapiens emerged collectivley [sic] from its prehuman hominid past.” You certainly implied it when you said that “it is not possible that the number of breeding human ancestral pairs ever fell to one.”
(2) Homo sapiens emerged collectively from its prehuman hominid past in the same way that modern horses descended from Hyracotherium. These was not one original pair of horses, as there was not one original pair of butterflies, or eagles, or muskrats, or humans. Animals evolve in populations, not as individuals or single pairs.
E
EphelDuath
Guest
I know exactly what it is. Point out my alleged error, please.(1) I don’t think you understand what polygenism is. You may read about it here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygenism
What we call “horse” is an amalgamation of several different pre-horse animals that eventually acquired a set breeding pattern. That’s why it’s difficult to classify species in this context, because due to evolution, they’re almost always in flux; and so long as they can reproduce, they’re still of the same species. So both of us could be correct depending on what definition of “human” you want to use. A population of (pre-)humans could be considered human beings, depending on how metaphysically concise you demand them to be, or one specific one with a specific genetic mutation that he eventually spread to his offsprings, and only they are human beings.(2) Homo sapiens emerged collectively from its prehuman hominid past in the same way that modern horses descended from Hyracotherium. These was not one original pair of horses, as there was not one original pair of butterflies, or eagles, or muskrats, or humans. Animals evolve in populations, not as individuals or single pairs.
E
edwest2
Guest
Well, first we’re told ‘evolution’ is about populations, not individuals. Then we’re told individuals matter. I am very skeptical that there were any so-called pre-humans, just humans.I know exactly what it is. Point out my alleged error, please.
What we call “horse” is an amalgamation of several different pre-horse animals that eventually acquired a set breeding pattern. That’s why it’s difficult to classify species in this context, because due to evolution, they’re almost always in flux; and so long as they can reproduce, they’re still of the same species. So both of us could be correct depending on what definition of “human” you want to use. A population of (pre-)humans could be considered human beings, depending on how metaphysically concise you demand them to be, or one specific one with a specific genetic mutation that he eventually spread to his offsprings, and only they are human beings.
For those who think religion has nothing to say about science, please keep your science out of religion. Unless you can show a scientific, peer reviewed paper analyzing the claims made in Genesis.
Peace,
Ed
E
EphelDuath
Guest
It’s about both population and individuals. And given the extraordinary amount of scientific evidence that demonstrates that humans indeed have evolved from earlier species, I see no reason not to believe this is the case; unless you can give me a solid reason to think that God would want to trick us.Well, first we’re told ‘evolution’ is about populations, not individuals. Then we’re told individuals matter. I am very skeptical that there were any so-called pre-humans, just humans.
I agree, which is why I’m baffled that you continue to rattle against theistic evolution.For those who think religion has nothing to say about science, please keep your science out of religion.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
What do you understand “polygenism” to mean?I know exactly what it is. Point out my alleged error, please
E
edwest2
Guest
Can you explain what Theistic Evolution means?It’s about both population and individuals. And given the extraordinary amount of scientific evidence that demonstrates that humans indeed have evolved from earlier species, I see no reason not to believe this is the case; unless you can give me a solid reason to think that God would want to trick us.
I agree, which is why I’m baffled that you continue to rattle against theistic evolution.
Biology textbook + the phrase “God was involved, somehow, maybe” = TE ?
Two people are talking, one is an atheist and one is a theist.
Atheist: Evolution is a fact.
Theist: Yeah, but God was involved.
Atheist: Prove it.
Theist: I can’t.
Atheist: No problem, just as long as you are convinced evolution is a fact.
This is not just about “faith” which apparently can ignore, in this case, the fact that God performs miracles, like Eve being formed (literally) from Adam’s side. Not some metaphor.
Peace,
Ed
- Status
- Not open for further replies.