Polygenism/Monogenism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Faith1960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
from Hawks

Mailbag: Y chromosome Adam
Code: 
                                                                    Thu, 2011-02-17 11:45 -- John Hawks                Hi John, I enjoy your blog very much. I’ve been reading a lot recently on  human origins and genetics (most recently, for example, Nicholas Wade’s  book Before the Dawn).
One issue that I find does not seem to be clear in popular science accounts, and I thought you could clarify— around the so-called Y-Chromosome Adam (or Mitochondrial Eve). Have geneticists determined that “Adam” was actually an individual in the ancestral population? Or is this shorthand for what I understand to be a ‘deme’ or a subpopulation within the ancestral population.
There is a unique ancestor for the Y chromosome, so it is really an individual. As in the case of the mtDNA, this would not be the only man who was alive at that time, it is just inevitable that at some point all the other Y chromosome lineages have become extinct.

The reason you haven’t heard too much about it lately is that there is a huge dispute about how long ago the Y chromosome ancestor lived. Most estimates put it within the last 70,000 years, which is too young. But we don’t really know how much too young. I expect we’ll have better estimates upon whole-genome sequencing, but not yet.
 
buffalo said:
Outdated? So we dismiss Ayala’s paper to for the same reason?
Click to expand...
Well certainly you could, *if * you’d find all the other scientists of our time dismissing Ayala’s beliefs. Unfortunately they, virtually all of them support polygenism. :banghead:
 
Faith1960 said:
Well certainly you could, *if * you’d find all the other scientists of our time dismissing Ayala’s beliefs. Unfortunately they, virtually all of them support polygenism. :banghead:
Click to expand...
Yep - pretty much on a few assumptions that are weak. And a healthy does of an a priori bias that evo must have happened. Polygenism and evo are inextrcably linked.

I am not convinced.
 
Faith1960 said:
Well certainly you could, *if * you’d find all the other scientists of our time dismissing Ayala’s beliefs. Unfortunately they, virtually all of them support polygenism. :banghead:
Click to expand...
Is this an argument from popularity? 😉 😦
 
buffalo said:
Yep - pretty much on a few assumptions that are weak. And a healthy does of an a priori bias that evo must have happened. Polygenism and evo are inextrcably linked.

I am not convinced.
Click to expand...
LOL. Neither am I convinced of your assertions, which are also biased.
 
Faith1960 said:
I don’t know what that has to do with human origins.
Click to expand...
Post 236 has to do with the scientific method itself. Once the basic principles of the scientific method are understood, we can understand that polygenism can refer to hominins, animals, but not necessarily to humans. Then instead of spending time on research, we can logically point to the fact that the existence of Adam is possible. We can be comfortable with monogenism.

The Black Swan theory says that we cannot always rule out everything. Before European explorers had reached Australia, people believed that swans were white. A black swan was not possible. Surprise! Black swans exist.

The scientific (induction) method works well in current times because technology allows us to see nature better than ever. However, technology cannot bring the past into focus. Adam and Eve were a superior species. They did not have to depend on genetics or natural selection for decisions. They could analyze their environment and act accordingly. Adam and Eve’s material anatomies could have looked like hominins. Since scientists can only examine material anatomies, it would be easy to miss a small, but growing human family in the midst of a 10,000 population.

It is hard to step back from the computer and imagine what our ancient earth was like.
 
buffalo said:
Your claim is that peer reviewed sources can be biased?
Click to expand...
Anything that supports monogenism with the preconceived idea of there being a literal Adam and Eve, with the goal of proving they existed and are our first parents is biased.
Most of what you linked isn’t even that as much as it discusses possible theories without anything definate to disprove your position.
 
grannymh said:
Post 236 has to do with the scientific method itself. Once the basic principles of the scientific method are understood, we can understand that polygenism can refer to hominins, animals, but not necessarily to humans. Then instead of spending time on research, we can logically point to the fact that the existence of Adam is possible. We can be comfortable with monogenism.
Click to expand...
I’m not interested in learning the basic principals of the scientific method. I just want a list of up-to-date articles (or a list of books) written by well respected scientists who hold that there was a human bottleneck of two people in the history of mankind and that the degree of genetic diversity doesn’t make it impossible for that to have happened.
Heck, I said I wanted a list but at the rate things are going I’d probably even be happy with one article or book. :rolleyes:
 
buffalo said:
from Hawks

Mailbag: Y chromosome Adam
Code: 
                                                                    Thu, 2011-02-17 11:45 -- John Hawks                Hi John, I enjoy your blog very much. I’ve been reading a lot recently on  human origins and genetics (most recently, for example, Nicholas Wade’s  book Before the Dawn).
One issue that I find does not seem to be clear in popular science accounts, and I thought you could clarify— around the so-called Y-Chromosome Adam (or Mitochondrial Eve). Have geneticists determined that “Adam” was actually an individual in the ancestral population? Or is this shorthand for what I understand to be a ‘deme’ or a subpopulation within the ancestral population.
There is a unique ancestor for the Y chromosome, so it is really an individual. As in the case of the mtDNA, this would not be the only man who was alive at that time, it is just inevitable that at some point all the other Y chromosome lineages have become extinct.

The reason you haven’t heard too much about it lately is that there is a huge dispute about how long ago the Y chromosome ancestor lived. Most estimates put it within the last 70,000 years, which is too young. But we don’t really know how much too young. I expect we’ll have better estimates upon whole-genome sequencing, but not yet.
Click to expand...
Even he says this would not be the only man who was alive!
 
Faith1960 said:
Anything that supports monogenism with the preconceived idea of there being a literal Adam and Eve, with the goal of proving they existed and are our first parents is biased.
Most of what you linked isn’t even that as much as it discusses possible theories without anything definate to disprove your position.
Click to expand...
Your claim is that is no other peer reviewed science is biased? Only that which would claim Adam and Eve? You have just given away your own bias and agenda.
 
Faith1960 said:
I’m not interested in learning the basic principals of the scientific method. I just want a list of up-to-date articles (or a list of books) written by well respected scientists who hold that there was a human bottleneck of two people in the history of mankind and that the degree of genetic diversity doesn’t make it impossible for that to have happened.
Heck, I said I wanted a list but at the rate things are going I’d probably even be happy with one article or book. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
At the moment, the closest you will come to research suggesting the possibility of Adam and Eve is in chapter 5 of Science & Human Nature. One needs to carefully understand the information for this possible possibility. If, and this is a big if, certain situations are true, then “a first couple could have carried sufficient genetic diversity to account for four basic haploytypes, especially given the possibility of rapid population expansion afterward.” (Source of quote: page 117)

Personally, I do not consider “could have” as being the same as “actually had”. On the other hand, when one learns the basic principles of the scientific method, one can accept the possibility of Adam. After you read chapters 1 and 5 in the book, I am interested in how you interpret the case for the possibility of Adam.

On page 118, Ann makes known her shift in direction when she states: Now I would like to move in a more challenging direction. What if… Ann then challenges one of the presuppositions of the evolution theory. It is not my intention to discuss the evolution theory. I am only pointing out that challenges can be made in any natural science discipline.

Personally, I prefer knowing how the scientific (induction) method works because then that knowledge can apply to every research paper in some degree. It is easier to keep the concept of natural science research in my head than to try to remember everything I read.🙂
 
buffalo said:
Your claim is that is no other peer reviewed science is biased? Only that which would claim Adam and Eve? You have just given away your own bias and agenda.
Click to expand...
No, that’s not what I meant. I said that because thats what this thread is about.
 
grannymh said:
Before I do anything, I am curious as to what you think anthropologists and biologists use or do in order to gain knowledge about the size of the earth’s population. For example, a geologist examines rocks.
Click to expand...
Faith1960 said:
From what I’ve been learning, it involves math and genetics.
Click to expand...
The following is just a silly observation about natural science using math and genetics. Or …?

In the area of natural science human nature research, scientists can see genes and we can see pictures of genes. Are these genes the Catholic Sacrament of Reconciliation? Of course they are. There are two (math) people who have genes (genetics) who participate in this Sacrament; therefore natural science human nature research proves that genes are mathematically the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Therefore, when we want to know about this specific Sacrament, we search Google for natural science research papers because scientists already know about natural genes.

Now some scientists point out that there are different beliefs about how many people participate in the physical action of the Sacrament of Reconciliation; however since genes are the Sacrament because the Sacrament itself needs to be seen in a research paper and research papers are about genes–there are no real problems since natural science human nature research is the only resource for human nature research because human nature is natural.

😉
 
grannymh said:
The following is just a silly observation about natural science using math and genetics. Or …?

In the area of natural science human nature research, scientists can see genes and we can see pictures of genes. Are these genes the Catholic Sacrament of Reconciliation? Of course they are. There are two (math) people who have genes (genetics) who participate in this Sacrament; therefore natural science human nature research proves that genes are mathematically the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Therefore, when we want to know about this specific Sacrament, we search Google for natural science research papers because scientists already know about humangenes.

Now some scientists point out that there are different beliefs about how many people participate in the physical action of the Sacrament of Reconciliation; however since genes are the Sacrament because the Sacrament itself needs to be seen in a research paper and research papers are about genes–there are no real problems since natural science human nature research is the only resource for human nature research because human nature is natural.

😉
Click to expand...
 
Faith1960 - recommended reading

Adam and Eve: Defense of Their Literal Existence as the Primal Human Couple, by Catholic Philosopher, Dr. Dennis Bonnette

Here is a solid orthodox Catholic presentation of our belief in Adam and Eve, in light of present-day science, from exchanges with a dedicated Darwinian. Dr. Bonnette wrote in his letter to me:

As you may recall, my book, Origin of the Human Species (Sapientia Press, 2003), defends the reality of Adam and Eve. . . . Nothing is more central to the Judeo-Christian religious tradition than the reality of Adam and Eve, for reasons you know even better than I. . . .
His words follow (from files he sent along):

…
And what does the Catholic Church teach about a literal Adam and Eve? The dogma of Original Sin teaches that Adam lost sanctity and justice by transgressing the divine commandment, that this single sin is transmitted to all his posterity by descent – not by imitation, and that it dwells in every human being – transmitted by the natural act of generation. (Denzinger 789-791) Pius XII makes clear in Humani generis that this is *“a sin actually committed by an individual Adam.” * (H.G. #37) Catholic teaching is thus clear about the actual existence of Adam as an individual human being. And since Adam transmitted original sin by the natural act of generation, it necessarily follows that he did so with the co-operation of a female spouse, Eve. Hence, belief in a literal Adam and Eve is warranted.

Further, the miracles of Lourdes arise in a context which points specifically to Adam’s existence, since St. Bernadette Soubirous told authorities that the Lady who appeared to her in 1858 said that she was the “Immaculate Conception.” The dogma of the Immaculate Conception had been defined just four years earlier in 1854, and declares that the Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived free from original sin, the sin committed by Adam. Hence, Lourdes specifically, though indirectly, confirms the literal existence of Adam and Eve.

As to the question of theological polygenism, Pius XII teaches that Catholics are not free to uphold polygenism, because * “it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.”* (H.G. #37)

more…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top