Polygenism/Monogenism

[fnr]

One can read all kinds of stuff into Genesis. The question is - what has been the constant teaching and understanding of the Church through history?

• God created everything “in its whole substance” from nothing (ex nihilo) in the beginning.
  (Lateran IV; Vatican Council I)
• Genesis does not contain purified myths. (Pontifical Biblical Commission 1909[1])
• Genesis contains real history—it gives an account of things that really happened. (Pius XII)
• Adam and Eve were real human beings—the first parents of all mankind. (Pius XII)
• Polygenism (many “first parents”) contradicts Scripture and Tradition and is condemned. (Pius XII; 1994 Catechism, 360, footnote 226: Tobit 8:6—the “one ancestor” referred to in this Catechism could only be Adam.)
• The “beginning” of the world included the creation of all things, the creation of Adam and Eve and the Fall (Jesus Christ Mark 10:6]; Pope Innocent III; Blessed Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus).
• The body of Eve was specially created from a portion of Adam’s body (Leo XIII). She could not have originated via evolution.
• Various senses are employed in the Bible, but the literal obvious sense must be believed unless reason dictates or necessity requires (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus).
• Adam and Eve were created upon an earthly paradise and would not have known death if they had remained obedient (Pius XII).
• After their disobedience of God, Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden. But the Second Person of the Trinity would subsequently pay the ransom for fallen man (Nicene Creed).
• Original Sin is a flawed condition inherited from Adam and Eve (Council of Trent).
• The Universe suffers in travail ever since the sin of disobedience by Adam and Eve. (Romans 8, Vatican Council I).
• We must believe any interpretation of Scripture that the Fathers taught unanimously on a matter of faith or morals (Council of Trent and Vatican Council I).
• Evolution must not be taught as fact, but instead the pros and cons of evolution must be taught.
  (Pius XII, Humani Generis)
• Investigation into human “evolution” was allowed in 1950, but Pope Pius XII feared that an acceptance of evolutionism might adversely affect doctrinal beliefs.

I’d note that most of the sources you cite here are from 1800 or later, which calls into question the notion of constancy. After Darwin wrote his book, On the Origin of Species and The Descent of Man, new scientific hypotheses were introduced that have been refined and clarified over time. Citing Trent and scripture on general topics is no really germane to the subject at hand. Physics and metaphysics are distinctly different fields, and metaphysics that is perfectly at ease with physics (the most fundamental of all sciences, which underlies all other life and physical sciences) is central to Thomistic reasoning and later post-Enlightenment Catholicisim.

That recent documents like Stewardship and Creation (2004) seem quite at ease with evolutionary theory (though with the “ontological leap” of creation built in) seems to undercut the need for a literal Adam and Eve.

 

[grannymh]

That recent documents like Stewardship and Creation (2004) seem quite at ease with evolutionary theory (though with the “ontological leap” of creation built in) seems to undercut the need for a literal Adam and Eve.

Pardon me, would you be referring to Communion and Stewardship, a report by the subcommission of the International Theological Commission which eventually approved the text? vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

No. You cannot be referring to that document because in #64 it refers to John Paul II.

#64 says:
"In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis ), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are** “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith**. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbationof all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance… "

What I put in bold does not sound like the Catholic Church is being at ease with evolution theories.

65 says:​

" What is more, the common ancestry and natural unity of the human race are the basis for a unity in grace of redeemed human persons under the headship of the New Adam in the ecclesial communion of human persons united with one another and with the uncreated Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."

What I put in bold does not sound like undercutting the need for a literal Adam and Eve.

 

[buffalo]

I’d note that most of the sources you cite here are from 1800 or later, which calls into question the notion of constancy. After Darwin wrote his book, On the Origin of Species and The Descent of Man, new scientific hypotheses were introduced that have been refined and clarified over time. Citing Trent and scripture on general topics is no really germane to the subject at hand. Physics and metaphysics are distinctly different fields, and metaphysics that is perfectly at ease with physics (the most fundamental of all sciences, which underlies all other life and physical sciences) is central to Thomistic reasoning and later post-Enlightenment Catholicisim.

That recent documents like Stewardship and Creation (2004) seem quite at ease with evolutionary theory (though with the “ontological leap” of creation built in) seems to undercut the need for a literal Adam and Eve.

Do I really need to go through the centuries?

 

[grannymh]

In the spirit of getting my retaliation in first there are already criticisms of Dr Gauger’s book available: Science and Human Origins - Chapter 5 review.

rossum

Interesting questions from the link: “What hidden assumptions would those be? In what sense are they hidden?”
Those interested in knowing what Ann wrote should read page 112

Here is a link statement that I fully agreed with: " You can’t have models without assumptions. Assumptions exist in all models, and in fact are sometimes quite robust to violation."
Those interesting in knowing some basics --on page 112, Ann names explicit assumptions.

Even though the link is on chapter 5, start reading with chapter 1. As I said somewhere, I am not concerned about chapters 2, 3, and 4.

I did not pick apart the link because for the most part it sounded general. However, there was one statement which gives a wrong impression of Ann’s work.

Note to readers. I will quote some of the highlights from chapter 5 which are technical. They demonstrate that there was a lot more than a “one-locus study from the 1990’s.” For those who have this book, please know that Ann does use simpler language for us ordinary folk. She has an excellent “Take Home Message” on page 116. Chapter 1 is a good introduction.

From link to review:

“Readers of my review might recall that I was unimpressed by her population genetics argument for a two-person bottleneck for several reasons, one of which was that she singled out a one-locus study from the 1990s to make her entire case.”

Actually, Ann reported her findings from contemporary published research on the genetic variation in human leukocyte antigen (HLA) genes, some of the most variable genes in the human genome. (page 106) Figure 5-1,page 107, shows the locations of the main HLA genes in humans, the HLA Complex, Chromosome 6. Francisco Ayala chose HLA-DRB1 to make his point in 1995.(Francisco Ayala, “The myth of Eve: Molecular biology and human origins,” Science 270 (1995): 1930-1936)

Moving on from Ayala’s study which based his phylogenetic tree on exon 2 sequences of the HLA-DRBI genes, Ann reviewed the research of Bergstrom et al which used intron 2 sequences.The third reviewed study by Doxiadis et al examined
the phylogenetic histories of chimp, macaque and human HLA-DRB1 genes using sequences taken either form exon 2 or introns 1-4.

Note to readers: Researchers use gene sequences from chimps and similar animals. Figure 5-4, page 114, is a simplified drawing of the results from Macaque, chimp, and human results from both Introns 1-4 and Exon 2. In Ayala’s paper, Figure 4 represents the genealogy of 119 DRB1 genes, of which 59 are from human, 40 are from apes, and 20 are from Old World monkeys.

The fourth paper reviewed is C.K. Raymond et al., “Ancient haplotypes of the HLA Class II region.” Genome Research 15 (2005): 1250-1257. Additional citations are in the Endnotes for chapters 1 and 5.

Science & Human Origins

 

[grannymh]

I’m not interested in learning the basic principles of the scientific method.

This sounds like diving into the ocean without knowing how to swim.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Every human being has two copies of every gene, one copy from their father and one copy from their mother. Some genes come in slightly different versions, called “alleles”. We all have the genes for eyes. Some of us have the blue-eye allele while others have the brown-eye allele. Blood types O, A, B and AB are another example of human alleles.

Two humans, like Adam and Eve, can have at most four alleles between then, two each.

Rossum, that’s statistically the case, but it is in fact false.
The human body and immune system is composite; the “siamese” twin effect is not all that uncommon – and there are variations in how much intertwining happens.

The fact of the matter is that human “chimeras” exist; where two fraternal twins implant so close together in the womb that their bodies fuse into a single one. The body looks normal, but has cells with two distinct sets of DNA.

It is not uncommon for strips, axially oriented, to be made up of alternately one DNA type – and then the other. In that case, the reproductive organs are often of different DNA types. Hence, there are two ovaries – and two allele’s each; leading to four allele’s in the woman alone.

I see no reason why the male would be any different having two testicles, but I haven’t seen a test case on a man – just two examples of women chimeras with different ovaries.

That means there can easily (if rarely) be six allele’s in a mating pair of human beings; and extraordinarily rarely, eight.

The only requirement for them to pass on, is that multiple children be born from that mating pair.

We can examine the DNA of modern humans and count how many alleles there are for various genes. Some genes have hundreds of different alleles.

We have accurate estimates of the mutation rates for many of those genes.

Ayala, does not use accurate estimates of mutation rates. He uses a model from the early 60’s which does not take into account that certain codon sequences are far more likely to mutate than others – and that some codon sequences are identical in meaning to others. He treats all mutations as totally distinct – and equally likely; and that’s simply false.

Starting from four alleles and allowing for the mutation rate which can make new alleles, it is impossible to get as many alleles as we see today. Taking the number of alleles, and working backwards using the mutation rate we can get minimum population estimates into the past.

No, it’s not impossible – it’s just unlikely.
However, speciation, is not something that is likely; The events can be gradual or abrupt which lead to a change. In the event of an abrupt change, the event which triggers it would not be expected to be a NORMAL reproductive cycle; hence it is necessary to apply different assumptions to a bottleneck of two, vs. a bottleneck of thousands.

Chimpanzees also have alleles. Since many of their genes are the same as ours, we also share some alleles with chimps. The vast majority of these shared alleles will go back to our common ancestor with chimps, around five million years ago. Again, there are too many shared alleles for a population as low as two.

Cheetahs did have a severe genetic bottleneck about 10,000 years ago. They have a very small number of alleles. It is possible that the cheetah bottleneck was as narrow as a single family. You can do a skin graft between unrelated cheetahs and it will take. They are so genetically similar that the transplant is not rejected. If humans had been through a recent genetic bottleneck as narrow as a single breeding pair then we would exhibit the same characteristics.

Grafts from genetically incompatible people are possible. It’s a matter of understanding the immune system and how to cause an immuno response to dampen. Exposing the leukocytes in the bone marrow to low enough doses of destroyed cell samples of a foreign entity will cause the immune system to adapt and accept the incoming cell as native.

There is no way, in fact, for a human body to determine what is its own tissue and foreign tissue, except how it is introduced.

The same type of issues are involved in allergies; and desensitization to allergies proceeds along the same line. Continual exposure to very low doses, with slowly increasing concentration, can desensitize the immune system.

Science can detect the signs of a genetic bottleneck, as is shown by cheetahs. Humans exhibit none of the signs of such a bottleneck so, in scientific terms, the number of humans never dropped as low as two. Something around 10,000 breeding pairs is a common estimate.

Of course, science cannot tell how many in the population had souls. Two souled humans in a population of genetically identical unsouled upright apes is scientifically feasible. Souls do not fossilise.

rossum

I suppose; but there are a LOT of restrictive assumptions in your analysis based on older science.

 

[rossum]

The fact of the matter is that human “chimeras” exist; where two fraternal twins implant so close together in the womb that their bodies fuse into a single one. The body looks normal, but has cells with two distinct sets of DNA.

So, are you claiming that Adam (or Eve) was a chimera? That gets you six alleles at the cost of Adam not being a normal human. Since Jesus was the new Adam, does that mean Jesus was a chimera as well?

Six alleles does not buy you a great deal.

Ayala, does not use accurate estimates of mutation rates. He uses a model from the early 60’s which does not take into account that certain codon sequences are far more likely to mutate than others – and that some codon sequences are identical in meaning to others. He treats all mutations as totally distinct – and equally likely; and that’s simply false.

I did not use Ayala. There has been a lot of work done more recently than the 60s. Here is one from 2000: Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans. There are many more similar papers, many more recent that 2000. Are you aware of Google Scholar: scholar.google.com/ ? Entering “human allele mutation rate” gives me over 300,000 hits. The vast majority of them are later than the 1960s.

Grafts from genetically incompatible people are possible.

I know. With cheetahs, none of the extra effort is needed. Every cheetah is compatible with every other cheetah. They are almost clones of each other.

There is no way, in fact, for a human body to determine what is its own tissue and foreign tissue, except how it is introduced.

False. Just try giving someone a transfusion with the wrong blood type. The human body is perfctly capable of recognising the presence of proteins produced by foreign alleles in the donor.

The same type of issues are involved in allergies; and desensitization to allergies proceeds along the same line. Continual exposure to very low doses, with slowly increasing concentration, can desensitize the immune system.

True but irrelevant. It has nothing to do with either the number of alleles present in the human population or the number of alleles we share with chimps.

rossum

 

[Huiou_Theou]

So, are you claiming that Adam (or Eve) was a chimera? That gets you six alleles at the cost of Adam not being a normal human. Since Jesus was the new Adam, does that mean Jesus was a chimera as well?

Six alleles does not buy you a great deal.

Human chimeras are perfectly normal human beings; their minds are not different from ours just because the genetic makeup was different. But even if they were, so?

As to Jesus, he has no human father. Where, then, did his X chromosome come from???

yes, he may well have been a chimera, or the offspring of one.
It’s a mistake to think the human body is only human because it is “normal”.
Downs syndrome triplody kids, are perfectly human – very loving; but they aren’t “Normal”; they are merely within a standard deviation.

I did not use Ayala. There has been a lot of work done more recently than the 60s. Here is one from 2000: Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans.

I’ll read it; but if it doesn’t specify which nucleotides – it is in error. It’s a very common error.

There are many more similar papers, many more recent that 2000. Are you aware of Google Scholar: scholar.google.com/ ? Entering “human allele mutation rate” gives me over 300,000 hits. The vast majority of them are later than the 1960s.

Let me point out something; Ayala’s is a 1990’s paper; but his method comes from 1960 – he just doesn’t tell you that; rather he “calibrates” a clock and lets you trace the footnotes. So, I’m sorry – but you need more than Google to prove your point – you need to actually critically review the papers.

I know. With cheetahs, none of the extra effort is needed. Every cheetah is compatible with every other cheetah. They are almost clones of each other.

That may have to do with other factors than the one you are focusing on; but yes, clearly it is easier for the body to adapt to something which is already very similar to itself.

False. Just try giving someone a transfusion with the wrong blood type. The human body is perfctly capable of recognising the presence of proteins produced by foreign alleles in the donor.

A transfusion is a rapid injection of material into the body. It violates the principle I outlined; and not only that – I was speaking about tissue grafts which is a different subject.

True but irrelevant. It has nothing to do with either the number of alleles present in the human population or the number of alleles we share with chimps.

rossum

yes it does – if the immune system can accept foreign tissue into a body; then tissue with different alleles can co-exist.

You’re being very narrow minded – medical science, and transfer of alleles, eg: possibly the scope of what viruses can do – are things insufficiently studied to make accurate predictions.

Polio was one of the first viruses to surprise the naive view that DNA replication is limited to fixed pathways that are uniform in all living things.
It’s hardly a large leap in logic to wonder if there are others which can transfer mutations in alleles from one host to another as a side effect.

Aids research in the last ten years has unlocked phenomenal advances in genetics – but it also has made scientists very aware of gaps in their knowledge that were glossed over before. We often don’t realize what we don’t know – until a surprise happens.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Six alleles does not buy you a great deal.

Acutally, now that I’m thinking of it – it does. 6 is the difference between impossible and possible but improbable. At 8, even Ayala’s becomes possible by his own admission – although highly improbable. And I never even had to mention ID.

Here is one from 2000: Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans. There are many more similar papers, many more recent that 2000. Are you aware of Google Scholar: scholar.google.com/ ? Entering “human allele mutation rate” gives me over 300,000 hits. The vast majority of them are later than the 1960s.

The error is less pronounced in that article, but it still exists.

Note, the abstract is intended to give you the most important data of the results, and to entice you to purchase the article (so they often over-state their conclusions…!); Hence, I can infer that the most important conclusion was an average rate of mutation; However, an average rate is precisely what the 1960’s model is based on, and that’s why it’s useless. Anyone using the data from the article you just produced, would be hardly better off than Ayala was.

Your linked article, notice, also concludes that “epistasis” must be much more pronounced than previously thought; and that there are 175 mutations PER GENERATION. That is many orders of magnitude greater than anything I have ever seen admitted in a polygenism paper.

But, even more important – your linked paper’s writers still overlook the correlation between particular nucleotides (not nucleotide locus) and mutation rates. That’s important, for some codon’s have redundant equivalents – so that a mutation between one and the other has no effect whatsoever on the gene; it’s simply an alternate encoding of exactly the same information.

This fact was taught to me in the 1980’s – in an honors course on genetics – as was another tidbit → the fact that redundant codons also happen to statistically be linked to high mutation rates. Since those mutations are irrelevant genetically, the body doens’t need to protect against them.
The paper bears that point out without recognizing the reason I just outlined; they say single site mutations are 10x more likely than other mutations.

However, those researchers don’t indicate that they distinguish between a true mutation of non-redundant codons, and a simple re-coding of the same information by an alternate codon; or even that they are aware of that distinction.

It’s a real possibility that a large number of the mutations mentioned simply oscillate between alternate encodings from one generation to the next with no effect at all;

Without reading the paper, we’ll never know; and reading comes at a price – and I’ll guarantee that a large number of Google Scholar papers will not have the answer themselves, but rather footnote another paper for that data. It gets to be an expensive goose chase that I’ve done in the past – often with a dead end in a paper that is out of print.

There are other sites which are free or far less expensive; such as deep dyve, and research gate; and plos biology (which I really like, as it has well written articles which are open to public inspection – including the human body; An unrelated article, not on evolution per se, but happens to be handy: plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001251 )

I’d love to actually see some articles from you that go into detail that we can study, and perhaps even apply to computer models; I do know how to write those, by the way – I used to do some limited ones for the U.S. Fish And Wildlife service;

USFWS: California condors live again…

 

[grannymh]

Today, Catholics are being intimidated by the push to modernize Catholicism in accord with the interpretations of research which are not warranted by the evidence.

This link gives a brief introduction to the Inductive (scientific) method.

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

 

[grannymh]

Discussion on Humani Generis.

Link: vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

Let us start at the beginning. In Humani Generis #35, Pius XII refers to the pressure on the Catholic Church to change basic doctrines to conform to scientific theories. I put the issue in bold.

"35. It remains for Us now to speak about those questions which, although they pertain to the positive sciences, are nevertheless more or less connected with the truths of the Christian faith. In fact, not a few insistently demand that the Catholic religion take these sciences into account as much as possible. This certainly would be praiseworthy in the case of clearly proved facts; but caution must be used when there is rather question of hypotheses, having some sort of scientific foundation, in which** the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture or in Tradition is involved**. If such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted."

Today, Catholics are being intimidated by the push to modernize Catholicism in accord with the interpretations of research which are not warranted by the evidence. Over sixty years later, the encyclical’s directives for discussions regarding our human nature remain.

Using the link above, we understand that #36 refers to discussions about the origin of the human body which should take place in the domain of the natural sciences and also in the domain of theology (Catholic doctrines). The liberty of this discussion is granted. However, the discussions must be conducted so that both opinions, favorable and unfavorable to evolution as our origin, can be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness. Pius XII is laying out a reasonable plan to find the truth.

Truth can be found provided that science is conducted properly and Catholic doctrines are properly understood.

Pius XII is totally aware of what has been happening regarding human origin. The Catholic doctrine which holds that God as Creator can begin the human species with two sole parents is discarded in favor of a solely materialistic view of the human person. Whereas, Pius XII sees discussions on human origin as drawing information from both the Catholic Church and the world of science, those who are promoting only the scientific aspects neglect the (name removed by moderator)ut of Divine Revelation.

Here is the last line of #36 which is clear that we must not transgress the liberty of discussion by refusing to take into consideration the facts of human origin. Our sources for truth must include the divine revelation contained in our Catholic doctrines. I put in bold the true danger, i.e., attack on Catholic doctrine.

"#36. Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question."

---

In brief, Pius XII is telling us that, as Catholics, we must not consider interpretations of natural science as the only information source about human nature. We are an unique unification of *both *the material world and the spiritual world.

To omit Divine Revelation as contained in Catholic Doctrines is to deny our very existence.

 

[Petergee]

I’d note that most of the sources you cite here are from 1800 or later, which calls into question the notion of constancy.

Please cite ANY doctrinal statement pre-1800 which contradicts ANY of the doctrines which buffalo pointed out in post 146.

 

[grannymh]

Aids research in the last ten years has unlocked phenomenal advances in genetics – but it also has made scientists very aware of gaps in their knowledge that were glossed over before. We often don’t realize what we don’t know – until a surprise happens.

A surprise like a Black Swan.

Or a superior species like humankind.

Thanks for all your informational posts…

 

[Arandur]

Assuming this is a live thread and it is okay to still post in it (not being too near the banned topic), I find the topic very interesting.

I think some answers may be found in taking a look at anthropology–evidence of human civilization and migrations and such. The question of when Adam and Eve lived is also very pertinent to this topic.

Settlements
For instance, assuming that we can rely on dates of settlements and human remains as being at least reasonably accurate, I think we’d have to say that Adam and Eve lived prior to 40,000 years ago–or else the Australian Aborigines would not be their descendants and thus would not be true humans.

Further, where do we see evidence left behind of people exercising the powers of the human soul (rationality, self-awareness, spirituality)? Those markers are debatable, but I think complex language, symbolism, burial rituals and suchlike would be candidates for such evidence. There seems to have been an explosion of these between 70,000 years ago and 50,000 years ago, leaving that area a nice candidate. But there is some evidence of these things prior to that, and even in communities other than anatomically-modern homo sapiens sapiens. So some interesting things to look at there.

Genetics
As for genetic evidence, yes, there seems to be some plausibility in the proposals of a “pure” genetic code permitting inbreeding, long lives and rapid population growth leaving us with the evidence in our genetic code today.

However, that breaks down if the genetic code of homo sapiens sapiens carries evidence of preserved mutations and common lineage from an ancestor prior to Adam and Eve. Since there seems to be evidence in continuity of genes, I don’t see how a suddenly “pure” human genetic code can be inserted into the timeline, unless it is very early (much earlier than 70kya).

Identical Ancestor
Interestingly, the concepts of Identical Ancestor place a couple at ~5,000-15,000 years ago, give or take quite a bit; and Most Recent Common Ancestor at sooner than that. That’s long after a flourishing of language and culture, and I’m not sure how it can be claimed given the isolation of the Australian aborigines, but it may point to a Noah-like ancestor (rather than Adam and Eve).

While genetics proposes the likelihood of human populations never falling below 1,000-10,000 couples, I’m not sure how reliable that really is. Considering that Mitochondrial Eve (~150-200kya) and Y-Chromosomal Adam (140kya-60kya) would seem to obscure the possibility of prior singular ancestors. In other words, if you can trace an ancestor to a “Mitochondrial Eve,” how could you show that a singular Eve did not occur before that?

There’s always the possibility (even a likelihood), then, that a monogenetic couple could not even be detected by science at this point. God could have provided for the variability necessary, but that does appeal to a special miracle and intervention.

Other extant hominids (if any) would need to be considered–what was moral status prior to being supplanted by Adam’s children, and do they show up in Genesis? (Nephelim, giants, other implied peoples…?)

Theology
I think one of the primary arguments theologically for monogenism against polygenism is that it is a stronger type and shadow for Jesus if there was a singular Adam. That which is a stronger connection and glorifies God more is more likely to be true. Unless of course we’re just misunderstanding the alternative. For example, the idea that the Earth wasn’t the center of the universe was disruptive to many not just because of what Scripture seemed to them to say, but because it seemed to take away from the purpose of God in designing the Earth and therefore His glory and that of the Incarnate Son. That didn’t make it not true, and I would suggest we have other evidences of great glory and Providence in the heliocentric theory and the great age and expanse of the universe.

Royalty
So perhaps suggesting that God chose Adam and Eve out from among a population, and then let them back into it, sanctifying and introducing a soul as spiritual parents, could be a greater glorification since it might point to the greater dominion and royalty of our first parents.

Corporate sin
Or perhaps even the idea that a whole people were chosen, headed by Adam and Eve as Abraham and the patriarchs were heads and kings of their peoples and fathers to them all, is possible. Corporate sin or a whole people sinning together is seen throughout Scripture. And a genetic population is by definition all related by kinship, anyway; therefore, by generation and brotherhood. One Savior can still take upon Himself the “sins of the [whole] nation.”

ET
A side question would be that if strict generation from Adam is required, IF we ever were to encounter extraterrestrials with intelligence, and they were Fallen, they could not be Redeemed by Christ, for they would not be human. But if the condition that we’re talking about as “human” is being created in the Image and Likeness of God, with both physical and spiritual being united together, then that possibility is still open.

I still look to monogenism, but I am puzzled as to why the Church holds to it so strictly in light of other possibilities.

 

[grannymh]

Assuming this is a live thread and it is okay to still post in it (not being too near the banned topic), I find the topic very interesting.

I think some answers may be found in taking a look at anthropology–evidence of human civilization and migrations and such. The question of when Adam and Eve lived is also very pertinent to this topic.

Settlements
For instance, assuming that we can rely on dates of settlements and human remains as being at least reasonably accurate, I think we’d have to say that Adam and Eve lived prior to 40,000 years ago–or else the Australian Aborigines would not be their descendants and thus would not be true humans.

Further, where do we see evidence left behind of people exercising the powers of the human soul (rationality, self-awareness, spirituality)? Those markers are debatable, but I think complex language, symbolism, burial rituals and suchlike would be candidates for such evidence. There seems to have been an explosion of these between 70,000 years ago and 50,000 years ago, leaving that area a nice candidate. But there is some evidence of these things prior to that, and even in communities other than anatomically-modern homo sapiens sapiens. So some interesting things to look at there.

SNIP - due to length of post and its response

Theology
I think one of the primary arguments theologically for monogenism against polygenism is that it is a stronger type and shadow for Jesus if there was a singular Adam. That which is a stronger connection and glorifies God more is more likely to be true. Unless of course we’re just misunderstanding the alternative. For example, the idea that the Earth wasn’t the center of the universe was disruptive to many not just because of what Scripture seemed to them to say, but because it seemed to take away from the purpose of God in designing the Earth and therefore His glory and that of the Incarnate Son. That didn’t make it not true, and I would suggest we have other evidences of great glory and Providence in the heliocentric theory and the great age and expanse of the universe.

Royalty
So perhaps suggesting that God chose Adam and Eve out from among a population, and then let them back into it, sanctifying and introducing a soul as spiritual parents, could be a greater glorification since it might point to the greater dominion and royalty of our first parents.

Corporate sin
Or perhaps even the idea that a whole people were chosen, headed by Adam and Eve as Abraham and the patriarchs were heads and kings of their peoples and fathers to them all, is possible. Corporate sin or a whole people sinning together is seen throughout Scripture. And a genetic population is by definition all related by kinship, anyway; therefore, by generation and brotherhood. One Savior can still take upon Himself the “sins of the [whole] nation.”

ET
A side question would be that if strict generation from Adam is required, IF we ever were to encounter extraterrestrials with intelligence, and they were Fallen, they could not be Redeemed by Christ, for they would not be human. But if the condition that we’re talking about as “human” is being created in the Image and Likeness of God, with both physical and spiritual being united together, then that possibility is still open.

I still look to monogenism, but I am puzzled as to why the Church holds to it so strictly in light of other possibilities.

What a great summary of issues. Thank you.
Coincidentally, most of these issues are being worked on off line.

In the Christian tradition that the last shall be first – here is the response to your last line --" I still look to monogenism, but I am puzzled as to why the Church holds to it so strictly in light of other possibilities."

St. Paul holds the answer to monogenism in Romans 5: 12-21. The connection to Jesus is more than a shadow of some past occurrence or a type or comparison between Adam and Jesus. The key is this simple reference to one human being and his Original Sin: “For if by that one person’s transgression…”

Sadly, we have lost the real significance of Adam’s free action to scorn our Creator.
As a creature, Adam had to freely live in submission to our Creator. When he chose himself over God, Adam shattered humanity’s relationship with divinity. This was not a relationship between equals. The only one who would be capable of reconciling humanity with divinity would be someone who was both True Man and True God.

The Catholic Church knows that we cannot tamper with Original Sin without undermining the mystery of Christ. (Source: Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraph 389)