Pre-Adamism / Polygenism

[DylanO]

Hi everyone,

I’ve been debating a polygenist (polygenism is the belief that not all humans come from Adam). It is also known as Preadamism. I know this belief is condemned by the Church so, I need some help refuting this.

This polygenist sent me this link “proving” the idea at not all humans are Adamites: israelect.com/reference/BertrandLComparet/radio/Adam%20Was%20Not%20the%20First%20Man.pdf

What are your thoughts? I would like to refute this argument so, could anyone help me out with this? Also, does anyone have any science links showing DNA and genetic evidence that all humans descend from one man and one woman?

Thanks.

 

[Church_Militant]

Did you notice that his article makes no real factual case but simply offers his interpretation of the passages he quotes.

The beliefs that he espouses are not there but are something read into the passage. You won’t find any of the ECF that preach this or any non-heretical sources even prior to the reformation. This is just another fruit of Sola Scriptura gone mad where every man with a Bible is authority enough to interpret it whatever way they please.

 

[DylanO]

Yes, thats exactly what it is. However, I would like to point out the errors of preadamism and he is specifically asking for genetic proof that all humans come from one man and one woman.

 

[steveandersen]

…
What are your thoughts?

That denying that we are indeed all brothers and sisters is bad religion and bad science.

I would like to refute this argument so, could anyone help me out with this? Also, does anyone have any science links showing DNA and genetic evidence that all humans descend from one man and one woman?

Thanks.

Science can’t speak about individuals per se
But good chronological and geographical estimates exists for both the most recent common female ancestor and the most recent common male ancestor.

These are both different from a general most recent common ancestor and the identical ancestors point

DNA migration maps seem to indicated that we are all descended from a single population that began to spread across the globe about 2,000 generations ago.

 

[DylanO]

That denying that we are indeed all brothers and sisters is bad religion and bad science.

Science can’t speak about individuals per se
But good chronological and geographical estimates exists for both the most recent common female ancestor and the most recent common male ancestor.

These are both different from a general most recent common ancestor and the identical ancestors point

DNA migration maps seem to indicated that we are all descended from a single population that began to spread across the globe about 2,000 generations ago.

That’s what I showed this person. They said in response:

This has not been PROVEN.

Among other things it doesn’t take into account that Mitochondrial DNA is not ALWAYS inherited through maternal lines only most of the time. Most of the time over millions of years leaves a lot of places it can be thrown off.

Would you, or anyone else happen to know, more about this?

Thanks.

 

[steveandersen]

That’s what I showed this person. They said in response:
some silly person:

This has not been PROVEN.

Among other things it doesn’t take into account that Mitochondrial DNA is not ALWAYS inherited through maternal lines only most of the time. Most of the time over millions of years leaves a lot of places it can be thrown off.

Would you, or anyone else happen to know, more about this?

Thanks.

OK so maybe 0.0001 to 0.001% of mitocondrial DNA comes from the father

What does that have to do with his statement? The vast majority is still supplied by the mother and that is traceable over the number of generations we’re talking about
(in fact the gradual change over time due to genetic material from the father is part of the way to measure the number of generations that have gone by)

And how does that impact the Y chromosome MRCA?

 

[hecd2]

OK so maybe 0.0001 to 0.001% of mitocondrial DNA comes from the father

What does that have to do with his statement? The vast majority is still supplied by the mother and that is traceable over the number of generations we’re talking about
(in fact the gradual change over time due to genetic material from the father is part of the way to measure the number of generations that have gone by)

And how does that impact the Y chromosome MRCA?

Unfortunately for the religious Adam/Eve case, neither the maternal MRCA as traced through mitochondrial DNA nor the paternal MRCA as traced through Y-chromosome are the sole ancestors of extant humans in their generation. Maternal, paternal, Y-chromosome and mitochondrial MRCAs are all certain to have existed at some time. What is their existence supposed to prove?
However, if the question is not whether there is an individual Adam and Eve, sole ancestors of extant humans (there wasn’t), but whether extant humans derive from a single small population of individuals of no less than 10,000 in the last 200,000 years, then I’m with you guys.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/Mitochondrial%20Eve.htm
evolutionpages.com/Mteve_not_biblical_eve.htm

 

[DylanO]

Did you notice that his article makes no real factual case but simply offers his interpretation of the passages he quotes.

The beliefs that he espouses are not there but are something read into the passage. You won’t find any of the ECF that preach this or any non-heretical sources even prior to the reformation. This is just another fruit of Sola Scriptura gone mad where every man with a Bible is authority enough to interpret it whatever way they please.

I sent that to him, and this is what he said:

Did you notice that his article makes no real factual case but simply offers his interpretation of the passages he quotes.

Thats painting with a broad brush. He doesnt ‘interpret’ anything, he takes his Bible, with a strongs concordance, and goes through Genesis with a fine tooth comb, getting all the original meanings of the words from Hebrew and Latin. Does your local priest do this? Does your arch bishop do this? Do even any of your mates from Catholic Answers or SSPX do this? I think not.

The beliefs that he espouses are not there but are something read into the passage. You won’t find any of the E Church Fathers that preach this or any non-heretical sources even prior to the reformation. This is just another fruit of Sola Scriptura gone mad where every man with a Bible is authority enough to interpret it whatever way they please.

Well that depends. Alot of people could have preached this, but how would we know? The Catholic Church didnt like opposition. For example, i dont want to get into the whole DSL/non DSL debate but i do recall the Church of the Culdee believing that Eve had sex with Satan in the Garden.

I mentioned that the beliefs of the “dual seedline doctrine” (which is what he mentioned before about Eve “having sex with Satan” in Eden and fathering Cain) and Preadamism are Talmudic doctrines and not Biblical or Christian, this was his response:

Well, the jews have been claiming to be Israel for the past thousand years, its only natural that they discover along the way the fate and heritage of non-Israelites. I wonder if they realise that fate includes themselves? Ironic isnt it…

Its also ironic that whilst you condemn sola scripture you present only scripture yourself to support your arguments.

There is no ‘reinterpretation’ or ‘rewriting’. There is simply going through the Bible using a Strongs Concordance getting meanings of words from original Hebrew and Latin, to understand exactly what is being said. This is understanding the Bible better, not changing its meaning. We dont just accept things at face value like Catholics do, because we know Jesus liked to speak in parables, and make us seek out the truth. We dont get given the Word on a silver platter, and instantly understand all the secrets of the Kingdom of Heaven, no, it takes years of study and prayer, of which i am just starting out on.

 

[Steve40]

The reason we all must come from Adam and Eve is because of the doctrine on Original Sin. Polygeism contradicts what Catholics believe about Original Sin and this is why it is condemnd as heresey.

You also may want to take a look at John Paul II’s Theology of the Body. It isn’t authoritative but it has a lot to say about being made in the likeness and image of God, procreation and the meaning in our bodies.

Just as one man’s flesh brought sin into the world One Man’s Flesh got rid of it.

 

[mdcpensive1]

to hecd2:

However, if the question is not whether there is an individual Adam and Eve, sole ancestors of extant humans (there wasn’t), but whether extant humans derive from a single small population of individuals of no less than 10,000 in the last 200,000 years, then I’m with you guys.

I do not see a reason to conclude that it must be a population that produced the first parents instead of an original pair. I have scanned the two links with the first one becomeing tedious in wondering if it would get to the point of the thread. Maybe you could paraphrase it for us to help our understanding. The second is also technical and is refuting the 6,500 year Eve position, which I personally don’t care about as much as the couple vs populatin theory you suggest. Neanderthals and other homo-erects have populated europe in the past from proven fossils. This is not in dispute. Please elaborate on the point you are trying to make so I, we, may understand.

mdcpensive1