Population Bottleneck

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hope1960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Humani Generis makes it clear, as have people here on CAF, that we are not allowed to believe in polygenism.
 
Last edited:
If it’s clear, you’ll have no problem answering these questions.

In Humani Generis, what does polygenism mean?

In the following quote from HG, what research on evolution can be done if Pius Xll is shutting the door on humans having ancestors other than Adam and Eve?
“the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter”

What is meant by the word “Now” in the following quote from HG?
“Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled…”

Pius Xll gives two examples of what he means by polygenism:
“after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all,”
And
“that Adam represents a certain number of first parents.“
Both examples fit the scientifically disproved version of polygenism of the early 20th century. But that’s where it ends. Today, people talk of polygenesis, as in evolution…not polygenism, as in separate genesis’ of races. I hope you see the distinction between polygenism of HG and “polygenesis” of modern genetics.
 
Last edited:
1Lord1Faith said:
If it’s clear, you’ll have no problem answering these questions.

In Humani Generis, what does polygenism mean?

In the following quote from HG, what research on evolution can be done if Pius Xll is shutting the door on humans having ancestors other than Adam and Eve?
“the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution , in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter”

What is meant by the word “Now” in the following quote from HG?
“Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled…”

Pius Xll gives two examples of what he means by polygenism:
“after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all,”
And
“that Adam represents a certain number of first parents.“
Both examples fit the scientifically disproved version of polygenism of the early 20th century. But that’s where it ends. Today, people talk of polygenesis, as in evolution…not polygenism, as in separate genesis’ of races. I hope you see the distinction between polygenism of HG and “polygenesis” of modern genetics.
Click to expand...
I’m just here to learn. And what I’ve learned from CAF is that belief in polygenism isn’t allowed due to HG.
 
No one has believed in HG’s polygenism since genetics has disproved it 50 years ago. It’s not relevant to discussions of evolution and population bottlenecks.
 
Last edited:
1Lord1Faith said:
No one has believed in HG’s polygenism since genetics has disproved it 50 years ago. It’s not relevant to discussions of evolution and population bottlenecks.
Click to expand...
No one? Most of CAF does. But… back to my OP.
 
Last edited:
No one on CAF believes that the different human races evolved into humans separately in different parts of the world.
 
Virtually everyone here believes that the earths’ population sprung from two people. But… back to my OP.
 
Last edited:
1Lord1Faith said:
No one on CAF believes that the different human races evolved into humans separately in different parts of the world.
Click to expand...
I think you are right, that no one on CAF believes that the different human races evolved into humans separately. But there may be some here on CAF who believe that the body of the human species, evolved from a non-human hominoid. The races are not the same as the species. The different races of men still belong to the same human species.

The key to understanding the problem, I think, is to be aware that the theory of evolution is not about the evolution of the individual, but the evolution of the species . It is not the individual that evolves into a new kind of organism, but the species. This is why evolutionists talk of populations rather than individuals. Polygenesis is a normal feature in an evolutionary theory, which is why those Catholics who believe in the evolution of the human body have a problem when it comes to Adam and Eve.

Personally I can believe in the evolution of all organisms, except man. I take an exception when it comes to man because I don’t believe that man, or even his body only, evolved from non-human hominoids. Here is the reason why:

Man was a very special being because he was created according to God’s image and likeness (See Gen 1:26). Of course, that image and likeness resides primarily in the soul, but the human body shares and reflects that same dignity. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says the same thing:

“The human body shares in the dignity of "the image of God": it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit” CCC, #364.

Human nature is not the soul only, but body and soul. The human nature that Christ assumed during the Incarnation did not consist of the soul only, but the body and the soul. Do you see why the human body has a special distinction among all the bodies in the animal kingdom? It is not “just a body” like the body of a chimpanzee whose DNA is 98% identical to that of a man’s body. It is a very special body, destined to immortality after Christ’s second Coming.

HG asked us to be careful in applying the evolutionary model to the origin of man. The above explanation tells you why.
 
Hope1960 said:
What’s the difference?
Click to expand...
I take it that what you are asking me is the difference between the Darwinian and the non-Darwinian macro-evolution, right?

You see, both the Darwinian and the non-Darwinian evolutionists accept macro-evolution as a phenomenon. However, they differ in their explanation of the process of evolution, or of how evolution actually takes place.

The Darwinians believe that random genetic mutation and natural selection are the main mechanisms of macro-evolution. Of course, they also believe that evolution is affected by other factors, such as environmental conditions, population migration, etc. But the two main mechanisms are random genetic mutation and natural selection.

The non-Darwinians challenge the two mechanisms of Darwinian evolution. For example, they feel that the random genetic mutation results in gradual evolution and is too slow. They complain that the gradualism implied by the Darwinian synthesis cannot explain the sudden appearance of various species of organisms in the fossil record. So, in place of gradualism, they propose saltationism , or the mechanism that allows the species to develop suddenly rather than gradually. Other non-Darwinians downplay the role of natural selection and focus more on various forms of genetic evolutionary mechanisms that also work rapidly rather than gradually.

Hope that explanation helps.
 
buffalo said:
Explain? What happened to them?
Click to expand...
They aged and died. However, if they had children with a souled human (which is possible since they had biologically compatible DNA) then God gave the offspring a soul, so their children had souls as they were descended from Adam and Eve through their souled parent.

For example, Seth’s wife was not his sister, but an unsouled human from the surrounding population. All of Seth’s children were descended from both Adam and Eve through Seth, so God gave them souls.

These unsouled humans also account for the existence of a city for Cain to live in, and Cain’s wife by which he had his son.

Gradually more and more of the human population gained souls at birth until by now all have souls and are all descended from Adam and Eve.

rossum
 
rossum said:
For example, Seth’s wife was not his sister, but an unsouled human from the surrounding population. All of Seth’s children were descended from both Adam and Eve through Seth, so God gave them souls.
Click to expand...
Seth’s wife was his sister,
 
rossum said:
For example, Seth’s wife was not his sister, but an unsouled human from the surrounding population. All of Seth’s children were descended from both Adam and Eve through Seth, so God gave them souls.
Click to expand...
For a Buddhist you sure have a good knowledge of the Bible. I am impressed.

What you said is not impossible. The objection is more theological than scientific or philosophical. Because this would mean that the first humans were dating and mating with non-human hominins. Would that not be bestiality? And would the children be growing up with a non-human father or mother? I don’t think that is impossible, but rare.

Now, the following is just my own speculation. From a Catholic standpoint I think that when Adam and Eve were driven out of Paradise, they knew God already. They were also talking already, as they did in Paradise. This is not in the Bible, but I believe that Adam and Eve, realizing what had happened to them, probably lived as God-fearing and responsible parents. They had children and raised them as well as they could. Their children then mated and the population of humans increased. Did any of them engage in bestiality? Maybe, but I think that it would be more the exception than the rule. Then, although they started God-fearing and with the knowledge of God, people gradually lapsed into immorality and drifted away from religion as time went by. It got worse when they migrated to farther places away from their parents. By the time of Noah the world had degenerated into a very sinful world.
 
But were there few enough people to mean the Bible is right?
 
Last edited:
rom said:
For a Buddhist you sure have a good knowledge of the Bible. I am impressed.
Click to expand...
Thank you. I was raised Christian, became atheist in my mid-teens and Buddhist in my late teens. That was some time ago, since I am Georgian, not Elizabethan.
What you said is not impossible. The objection is more theological than scientific or philosophical. Because this would mean that the first humans were dating and mating with non-human hominins. Would that not be bestiality? And would the children be growing up with a non-human father or mother? I don’t think that is impossible, but rare.
Click to expand...
There is a choice between incest or bestiality or a mixture of both. Back then bestiality would have resulted in viable offspring with human DNA, unlike modern bestiality. That is a significant difference between then and now. Incest carries dangers of inbreeding, which outbreeding with biologically compatible almost-humans does not. Outbreeding also explains the failure to find any evidence of a recent genetic bottleneck in the human line. The 500,000 year plus time range for a bottleneck of two people indicates that it happened before the first Homo sapiens evolved, something like 250,000 years ago.

rossum
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top