Polygenism/Monogenism

[buffalo]

Im all confused now about what all I read and when so forget it.

If you are going to maintain a position you should at a least have sources, otherwise __________________________ (fill in the blank)

I take it as a concession.

 

[Faith1960]

If you are going to maintain a position you should at a least have sources, otherwise __________________________ (fill in the blank)

I take it as a concession.

Take it any way you wish. I’m not here for a debate, I come here to learn and thus far I’ve only learned that from a scientific standpoint, polygenism is the
most likely explanation for our human origins. If you’d care to link me to anything that makes sense and isn’t an attempt to grasp at straws it would be most welcome.

 

[Faith1960]

Take it any way you wish. I’m not here for a debate, I come here to learn and thus far I’ve only learned that from a scientific standpoint, polygenism is the
most likely explanation for our human origins. If you’d care to link me to anything that makes sense and isn’t an attempt to grasp at straws it would be most welcome.

And psudo-scientific information doesn’t cut it, either.

 

[buffalo]

Take it any way you wish. I’m not here for a debate, I come here to learn and thus far I’ve only learned that from a scientific standpoint, polygenism is the
most likely explanation for our human origins. If you’d care to link me to anything that makes sense and isn’t an attempt to grasp at straws it would be most welcome.

Sure, but one learns through debates. Both sides get represented in debates. The informal one’s here have taught me a lot.

But you have not provided any supporting sources for your belief.

 

[buffalo]

And psudo-scientific information doesn’t cut it, either.

That is why my sources are solid papers.

 

[Faith1960]

Sure, but one learns through debates. Both sides get represented in debates. The informal one’s here have taught me a lot.

But you have not provided any supporting sources for your belief.

Ive readandreadandread stuff I found online and as you’re well aware, the scientific community points to polygenism in virtually every source. I’m not about to go through every article again and post them so you can read what you already know.

So, it’s been very nice chatting with you, but unless you have current, reasonable, informative books you can point me to, or online links that can and do debunk current scientific thought I don’t really think there’s anything more I can add to the conversation.

 

[buffalo]

Ive readandreadandread stuff I found online and as you’re well aware, the scientific community points to polygenism in virtually every source. I’m not about to go through every article again and post them so you can read what you already know.

So, it’s been very nice chatting with you, but unless you have current, reasonable, informative books you can point me to, or online links that can and do debunk current scientific thought I don’t really think there’s anything more I can add to the conversation.

Just the top three. Boil it down. Or is everyone one of those other one’s built on a foundation of sand?

 

[grannymh]

Wish I’d have known that before I spent money on that book… Just like the other two books I bought to help me with this, which also didnt help.

I will work with you when you are on Chapters 1 & 5. Actually, we can help each other.

 

[grannymh]

Just give me three source papers. It shouldn’t be too much to ask.

John Hawks et al., “Population bottlenecks and Peistocene human evolution,”
Mol Biol Evol 17 (2000): 2-22

Francisco Ayala, “The myth of Eve: Molecular biology and human origins,”
Science 270 (1995): 1930-1936

Cann, R. L., Stoneking, M., & Wilson, A. C. “Mitochondrial DNA and human evolution” Nature 325, 31–36 (1987).

Now, can we return to the issue of monogenism, the Catholic doctrine that all humankind descended from two, sole, real human parents lovingly known as Adam and Eve?

 

[Faith1960]

John Hawks et al., “Population bottlenecks and Peistocene human evolution,”
Mol Biol Evol 17 (2000): 2-22

Francisco Ayala, “The myth of Eve: Molecular biology and human origins,”
Science 270 (1995): 1930-1936

Cann, R. L., Stoneking, M., & Wilson, A. C. “Mitochondrial DNA and human evolution” Nature 325, 31–36 (1987).

Now, can we return to the issue of monogenism, the Catholic doctrine that all humankind descended from two, sole, real human parents lovingly known as Adam and Eve?

Thanks Granny. I didn’t save any of my links. Here’s another one:www3.nd.edu/~afreddos/papers/kemp-monogenism.pdf

 

[Faith1960]

grannymh;10207101[COLOR=black:
[QUOTE]
Now, can we return to the issue of monogenism, the Catholic doctrine that all humankind descended from two, sole, real human parents lovingly known as Adam and Eve?
[/QUOTE]
I really don’t know what else there is to say.

 

[grannymh]

Thanks Granny. I didn’t save any of my links. Here’s another one:www3.nd.edu/~afreddos/papers/kemp-monogenism.pdf

This link is a dilly. Actually, this article is one of the important ones in philosophy circles. I read it sometime back. Then it took a week of argumentative e-mails with a philosophy professor before I could wrap my brain around one of its sections. I’m sure there are still parts which are over my head. Seriously, the value of this paper is that it is a fair summary of what is happening off line.

 

[Faith1960]

This link is a dilly. Actually, this article is one of the important ones in philosophy circles. I read it sometime back. Then it took a week of argumentative e-mails with a philosophy professor before I could wrap my brain around one of its sections. I’m sure there are still parts which are over my head. Seriously, the value of this paper is that it is a fair summary of what is happening off line.

This entire subject is over my head.

 

[grannymh]

This entire subject is over my head.

We can live without it.

 

[Faith1960]

Im still waiting to hear back from that UCC minister. Maybe I’ll try that church.

 

[grannymh]

I really don’t know what else there is to say.

Now is the time to look at science in the way scientists look at science.
The following is kind of a light approach to a serious subject. I happen to like links with pictures.

This link looks at the historical development of the scientific method. It has some good single sentences like – "In the scientific method, observation of nature is the authority. I was tempted to say “doh!” :doh2:
Yet, there is more in nature than meets the eye. (Now I am really getting silly.)
After looking at research links, etc., we both need to take a break and laugh.

batesville.k12.in.us/physics/phynet/aboutscience/Inductive.html

Here is another good link.
Reading the opening paragraph is all that is necessary.
svswans.com/black.html

Here is a picture.
svswans.com/b2page.html

“The black swan theory or theory of black swan events is a metaphor that describes an event that is a surprise (to the observer), has a major effect, and after the fact is often inappropriately rationalized with the benefit of hindsight.”
Wikipedia source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory

 

[Faith1960]

Now is the time to look at science in the way scientists look at science.
The following is kind of a light approach to a serious subject. I happen to like links with pictures.

This link looks at the historical development of the scientific method. It has some good single sentences like – "In the scientific method, observation of nature is the authority. I was tempted to say “doh!” :doh2:
Yet, there is more in nature than meets the eye. (Now I am really getting silly.)
After looking at research links, etc., we both need to take a break and laugh.

batesville.k12.in.us/physics/phynet/aboutscience/Inductive.html

Here is another good link.
Reading the opening paragraph is all that is necessary.
svswans.com/black.html

Here is a picture.
svswans.com/b2page.html

“The black swan theory or theory of black swan events is a metaphor that describes an event that is a surprise (to the observer), has a major effect, and after the fact is often inappropriately rationalized with the benefit of hindsight.”
Wikipedia source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory

I don’t know what that has to do with human origins.

 

[Faith1960]

Ok Buffalo, I read those links and it’s just as I expected. One link was outdated; they all were really difficult for me to understand and what I did understand didn’t show anything to debunk all the scietists claims that we were a product of monogenism.

 

[buffalo]

John Hawks et al., “Population bottlenecks and Peistocene human evolution,”
Mol Biol Evol 17 (2000): 2-22

Francisco Ayala, “The myth of Eve: Molecular biology and human origins,”
Science 270 (1995): 1930-1936

Cann, R. L., Stoneking, M., & Wilson, A. C. “Mitochondrial DNA and human evolution” Nature 325, 31–36 (1987).

Now, can we return to the issue of monogenism, the Catholic doctrine that all humankind descended from two, sole, real human parents lovingly known as Adam and Eve?

Do you remember?

Dear Grannymh, StAnastasia and Edwest2,

I’d just like to make a few quick comments on Adam and Eve, and Noah’s Flood.

Yesterday, I posted some links on human uniqueness and what separates us from chimps. I also discussed the question of whether Adam and Eve could have been real people. For anyone who wants to have a look, the link is here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…postcount=1004

StAnastasia, you wrote on that thread:

“If there were indeed only two human parents, this would have to be reflected in a very constricted number of alleles in the human genome. This restriction of variation does not exist; therefore we cannot have had only two ancestral parents.”

Not necessarily. If the genetic bottleneck occurred far enough back in time, then it could be very small. In my opinion, 200,000 years ago is far too recent. However, a case can be made for a genetic bottleneck around 2 million years ago (the time when Homo erectus emerged), according to this article by Hawks et al., entitled “Populations Bottlenecks and Pleistocene Human Evolution” in Molecular Biology and Evolution 17:2-22 (2000), available online at mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/17/1/2 .The article by Hawks is much more nuanced in its conclusions than the original 1994 article by Francisco Ayala which I referred to.

Hawks writes: “We have no way of directly estimating with any certainty the size of the human species immediately after the bottleneck at its origin.”

Ayala’s article was written in 1994. That’s 15 years ago.

I should also like to point out that a new book will be on the market soon, entitled, “Should Christians Embrace Evolution?” (IVP, 2009) See this Website: shouldchristiansembraceevolution.com/

The editor, Norman Nevin, is Professor Emeritus of Medical Genetics, Queen’s University of Belfast and Head of the Northern Regional Genetics Service. He has held the positions of secretary, vice-president and president of the UK Clinical Genetics Society as well as serving on various national and international committees notably the Human Genetics Advisory Commission. He is a member of the European Concerted Action for congenital abnormalities. Professor Nevin was a founder member of the UK Gene Therapy Advisory Committee. His research interests have resulted in over 300 peer reviewed publications on various aspects of genetics, especially single gene disorders and congenital abnormalities.

If this guy believes in Adam and Eve, then I for one am going to sit up and listen to what he has to say.

And as I pointed out yesterday, he is not alone. Dr. Jonathan Wells is also of the opinion that the biological evidence does not rule out monogenism.

Edwest2 (if you’re reading this):

You made some very interesting points about the Flood in your previous post. I have written about the flood previously, at Uncommon Descent. You might like to have a look at my post here:

uncommondescent.com/intel…comment-319741

Best wishes,

Vincent Torley​

and granny’s response

Thank you Vincent,

Your comment about John Hawks’ paper being “more nuanced in its conclusions” is an understatement. This was the first paper which gave me needed encouragement to persist in my belief in two sole parents of the human race. Currently, Hawks is on leave from the University of Wisconsin, Madison, “working on several projects”. Contributor Sang-Hee Lee is now at the University of California at Riverside. Her research area also encouraged me.

In my humble opinion, the bottleneck theory is quoted as a mantra without ever examining what actually contributes to it. The nuances in “Population Bottlenecks and Pleistocene Human Evolution” was full of small insights regarding bottlenecks – there is more than genetics.

I am wondering if I am off base. It seems to me that scientists who basically accept the materialistic views of the evolutionary theory are actually looking for the same evidence that I am. It seems to me that all of us are interested in how the human species came to be what it is today. What I see happening is that eventually there is a fork in the road. The materialistic viewpoint takes some people one way and Catholicism takes the way which can answer the serious questions about human life.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is meant for eternal life.

 

[buffalo]

Ok Buffalo, I read those links and it’s just as I expected. One link was outdated; they all were really difficult for me to understand and what I did understand didn’t show anything to debunk all the scietists claims that we were a product of monogenism.

Outdated? So we dismiss Ayala’s paper to for the same reason?