Reconciling Humani Generis with the human genetic data showing that there never were just two first parents

[Allyson]

On the “all genetic data from only two parents” view, however, there would have been sibling incest, so unseemly moral difficulties exist in either scenario.

Indeed, neither scenario is free from ethical issues, but one is free from the biological issues, which would guarantee the non-survival of the species.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Indeed, neither scenario is free from ethical issues,

Why would there be ethical issues? Nobody was subject to those kinds of restrictions at the time of Adam and Eve.

 

[Allyson]

Why would there be ethical issues? Nobody was subject to those kinds of restrictions at the time of Adam and Eve.

Speaking purely naturalistically in the absence of cultural norms, sure; but the Church does not make naturalistic claims. They make claims about immutable moral laws.

 

[Allyson]

@Neithan - If you have not heard this before, you might be interested in this radiolab episode. Part 1 is especially interesting. Part 3 discusses the Nicaraguan deaf students.

Words

 

[Gorgias]

Because it is an encyclical, we have to treat it with far more defence than an off the cuff statement.

Fine. Treat it as “authoritative”, then.

Wasn’t Mary in “original justice and holiness” from the first moment of her conception?

I’m gonna go out on a limb and offer the counter-intuitive answer “no”. From the catechism:

376 The inner harmony of the human person, the harmony between man and woman, and finally the harmony between the first couple and all creation, comprised the state called “original justice”.

If it’s harmony “between man and woman” and “between… all creation” that “comprises the state called ‘original justice’”, then no… Mary didn’t possess it.

(I would suggest that she possessed other graces, but “original justice” was not part of it.)

 

[Allyson]

Fine. Treat it as “authoritative”, then.

Do you think it is not authoritative? After all, he is drawing on the teaching of the magisterium. He is not breaking new ground.

 

[Gorgias]

Do you think it is not authoritative?

No, I think that, given the context, it is authoritative. But, if you’re worried about it being “infallible”, you can at least rely on it being authoritative teaching.

 

[Allyson]

Even without the magic words, he is re-stating what the church has established at two councils the Roman Church claims as Ecumenical (I make the distinction because some Eastern Rite churches would not consider Trent and Vat. I truly ecumenical in the absence of the assent of all the Orthodox churches, but that is a different sort of thread However, I think they would be more in agreement on human origins than on Papal Infallibility LOL). The purpose of Infallibility, in part, is to give the Pope the ability to settle a question without having to convene a council, and two ecumenical councils have spoken in the issue. I believe there was at least one regional council in Europe post-Darwin that circled the wagons too specifically on evolution.

 

[o_mlly]

Original Sin did not necessarily distort the human genome …

The teaching is that Original Sin is transmitted materially, that is through generation.

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 …(Humani Generis p.37)

… unique grace of God to be spared …

The above recognizes that a supernatural act alters the effect of a natural act. I agreed that we must allow a miracle, God’s special act, to fully explain our teaching.

Fr. N., I think, must extend his naturalist explanation beyond the evolution of the first human to explain the teaching on Original Sin. If the explanation introduces miracles in the middle or the end then what purpose does an attempt to eliminate miracles at the beginning serve? Either God directly, rather than through secondary causes, works in the evolution of man or He does not.

 

[Dovekin]

I do think the issue of Original Sin is a matter of faith and morals, and that was his primary concern with this encylclical.

I agree entirely, so I must not have been very clear in my earlier comment. The statement from HG:

the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either 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, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents.

As a statement about true men, it is a theological statement about he relationship of God, original sin, faith, etc.

There were other hominids, members of the same or related species, who lived after Adam and did not take their origin through natural generation from him. There were multiple hominid parents who contributed to the development of hominids. This is a scientific statement.

We are inclined to read HG as affirming the theological statement, and condemning the scientific statement. But Pius XII had no particular competence to declare scientific facts are true or false. We have to respect the theological opinion, but we do not have to accept his rejection of the scientific statement. If we read HG as a rejection of the scientific statement, it would be a statement about science, not about faith or morals, it would not be an infallible doctrine as a scientific statement, even if the theological statement is.

Sorting this is difficult. As Pius himself says, it is difficult to see how both the theological and scientific statements above can be true. That is why we are discussing it now.

On another issue, I would count the rational soul as exterior to the genome, though the genome has adapted to it. Any genetic changes are after the soul, by natural selection to improve our use of our rationality.

 

[rossum]

On another issue, I would count the rational soul as exterior to the genome

I agree. If the soul were found in the genome, then in theory scientists could copy that section of DNA into a different species. That would raise some interesting theological problems.

 

[Allyson]

Sorting this is difficult. As Pius himself says, it is difficult to see how both the theological and scientific statements above can be true. That is why we are discussing it now.

Indeed it is. The reason I find it problematic is that, even as a theological statement, it is relying on making a statement about biology, even though, as you say, Pius is not intending to make a scientific statement with that level of authority. His language elsewhere in the encyclical provides fodder for the people who still think evolution is in question. The very relevance of Original Sin for those thinkers, depends upon the creation account in Genesis being more literal than allegorical. That read is completely in line with what would be an orthodox reading of Genesis. How far to push that envelope out without being heterodox is exactly why I began this discussion thread. I have been reading through some of the article suggested, and since I find myself still digesting, I may not post new thoughts for another day or two.

On another issue, I would count the rational soul as exterior to the genome, though the genome has adapted to it. Any genetic changes are after the soul, by natural selection to improve our use of our rationality.

I have found it interesting, that in this tread not everyone (that I assume are coming at this from the Catholic perspective) is using the traditional Catholic concept of an intellectual and rational sould. Probably because I suggested that that fact could be tested for in posts early on, and making the spiritual and supernatural subject to scientific makes those assertions falisiable. I would say that, if the soul is having an effect on the evolution of the genome, that is a testable hypothesis.

 

[Allyson]

I’m also curious what you think of the “Romulus and Remus” hypothesis (published last year) by Dr. Andrey Vyshedskiy, who speculates that a combination of genetic mutation and prefrontal synthesis effectively resulted in behaviorally modern homo sapiens sapiens in one generation about 70,000 years ago. [If I understand it correctly.]

I finished reading the article, and I thought it was very interesting. Thank you for mentioning it! He may be on to something, but I am not 100% convinced that the PFS happened almost as soon as the the length of childhood was longer. I do agree that extended childhood accounts for why modern human technology has, and continues to advance more rapidly than that of other human subspecies. I think the main outstanding issue is that there is a pretty big gap between when humans are known to have a modern human modern human maturation period long before 70kya (in a google search I found a case of a 7-8 year old from 160kya). He does note the gap between morphologically modern (300 kya) and what he calls behaviorally modern.

I am going to let the article simmer a while in my head. I may have some more thoughts.

 

[Allyson]

I have finished the article, and I enjoyed reading it. I do think that it provides a good solution starting point. I want to spend some more time letting it simmer, but I was wondering if you know if the author has provided any additional updates regarding the date from Neanderthal DNA studies. He published the article right at the time those results were coming out, and in some ways it could have a bearing on his discussion of the science, and Neanderthals are the evolutionary descendent of that same common ancestor to modern homo sapiens who left Africa. I checked his CV, and there are not a lot of publication post this article.

 

[Neithan]

I think the main outstanding issue is that there is a pretty big gap between when humans are known to have a modern human modern human maturation period long before 70kya (in a google search I found a case of a 7-8 year old from 160kya). He does note the gap between morphologically modern (300 kya) and what he calls behaviorally modern.

I agree it’s an interesting hypothesis, and I like the outline of testable predictions. From my memory of the article, the genetic mutation that triggered an extension in the neurological maturation of the prefrontal cortex is not something that would be detected in the phylogenetic morphology of children. For all appearances they would be identical, but there was something new and different about how their brains worked.

Also I wondered about the apparent discovery of Neanderthal cave art in Spain a couple of years ago — how does that fit into Dr. Vyshedskiy’s hypothesis? Then again he does differentiate “non-PFS” art from clear evidence of PFS, and notes that people today with PFS disability can display artistic talents, but are limited to reproducing images, rather than creating novel and complex imaginary scenes.

Probably because I suggested that that fact could be tested for in posts early on, and making the spiritual and supernatural subject to scientific makes those assertions falisiable.

There is a tendency among some Catholics to isolate every single doctrine from empirical observation, also known as “bomb shelter theology.” I’m not in favour of that, because it could lead to some absurdity, like believing the Resurrection despite finding the bones of Jesus. However, not every doctrine is falsifiable, and I don’t know if any of them are empirically falsifiable in the immediate and inductive sense that Karl Popper demanded, because they don’t make claims about how natural laws work.

Empirical testing of the immaterial soul would seem to fail Occam’s Razor in every case, since there is always a material movement of cause and effect. The soul as the form of the body answers “why” the body is the way it is, but natural science is looking for “how” that happened. Natural science does not decide one way or the other on teleology.

 

[Allyson]

From my memory of the article, the genetic mutation that triggered an extension in the neurological maturation of the prefrontal cortex is not something that would be detected in the phylogenetic morphology of children.

I did not pick up on that in my first read through, but I will watch for that distinction!

Also I wondered about the apparent discovery of Neanderthal cave art in Spain a couple of years ago — how does that fit into Dr. Vyshedskiy’s hypothesis? Then again he does differentiate “non-PFS” art from clear evidence of PFS, and notes that people today with PFS disability can display artistic talents, but are limited to reproducing images, rather than creating novel and complex imaginary scenes.

It is interesting that, for an article that is so recent, that he did not address the possibility (even if it is still being debated). Along those lines, he did make a big deal of sewing needeles. While I know of no Neanderthal needles, there is some evidence from teeth and micro-debris from a flint knife that Neanderthals did manufacture thread. So the idea of just wearing over over themselves is not accurate. There is also some evidence that they removed large feathers from birds who were black - so far just of species known to have black feathers. The thought is that they used these feathers to decorate themselves.

As I am typing this, I also remembered that in his discussion of grave goods that, while he cam up with some alternative theories for the use of ocher, he did not at all address the use of spring flowers in at least one Neanderthal burial. It is certainly not as formal as leaving a pot in a grave, but I would still count that as a “good.”

 

[Neithan]

As I am typing this, I also remembered that in his discussion of grave goods that, while he cam up with some alternative theories for the use of ocher, he did not at all address the use of spring flowers in at least one Neanderthal burial. It is certainly not as formal as leaving a pot in a grave, but I would still count that as a “good.”

Yes the more we discover about our ancient cousins, the more they seem alike to us. I would hesitate to leap to conclusions from decorative art or even personal fashion. Dr. Vyshedskiy describes how those without PFS can, and do, use symbols with meaning. It’s different from the kind of novel imagination that PFS enables, such as the “lion man” from the German cave. If that was proven to be in fact the work of a Neanderthal, I think that would defeat this hypothesis.

 

[Allyson]

Yes the more we discover about our ancient cousins, the more they seem alike to us. I would hesitate to leap to conclusions from decorative art or even personal fashion. Dr. Vyshedskiy describes how those without PFS can, and do, use symbols with meaning. It’s different from the kind of novel imagination that PFS enables, such as the “lion man” from the German cave. If that was proven to be in fact the work of a Neanderthal, I think that would defeat this hypothesis.

It is hard to say what, if any, symbology Neanderthals and other pre-modern humans associated with their manufacturing. That they appeared to use decoration is at least a pre-requisite to having a symbolic culture. We can’t know their motives - whether it was just functional or meant to communicate. I think the red-abstract painting in Spain is the most intriguing artifact. There is also the cave carving in Gibralter. It is abstract lines, but someone spent the time.

Something else that Vyshedskiy did not discuss that I would like to know what side he would put the process on is the fact that Neanderthals came up a way to manufacture pitch long before modern humans did. (I know that I discussed it somewhere else above, but the thread is long now.) It is a process that involves melting birch bark in an oxygen deprived environment so that it does not combust. One documentary I watched had a possible process where the bark was placed inside two eggshells stacked on top of one another before sealing them with mud and placing them in the dirt below a fire. I would like to know if that is something that can be done without PFS in his analysis.

I am not entirely convinced by his discussion of stone tool making, but I will grant him that for the sake of argument since it can still be done by imitation. I do think that advances in techniques would take some PFS type ability, even if that ability was not as strong as modern humans have. Neanderthal style points, while appearing to be crude are well suited to their purpose and complex to manufacture.

 

[Gorgias]

If the soul were found in the genome, then in theory scientists could copy that section of DNA into a different species. That would raise some interesting theological problems.

I think that the suggestion is that the particular genome is the marker of the soul. If you were to splice that genome into another species, then you’d have “marker” without “thing being marked”. And, of course, you’d have demonstrated that the idea itself is bunk.

 

[Freddy]

rossum:

If the soul were found in the genome, then in theory scientists could copy that section of DNA into a different species. That would raise some interesting theological problems.

I think that the suggestion is that the particular genome is the marker of the soul. If you were to splice that genome into another species, then you’d have “marker” without “thing being marked”. And, of course, you’d have demonstrated that the idea itself is bunk.

The soul is meant to be the form or essence of the material body of a rational animal. And man is meant to be the only rational animal. The question then arises: did the soul evolve with that which evolved to be man or was there a specific point where we became human?

I think that if Aquinas had known that we were an evolved creature then his definition of soul would have been different.