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

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Else you are arguing for this bright line between human and non human which we know doesn’t exist. And which Aquinas was unaware of.

We don’t know that, and I do think there is a bright line that must have happened in one generation: one generation that we can point at and say, they are behaviorally modern. Recursive language, for example, would be a bright line. The “Romulus and Remus” hypothesis published last year is one possible scenario for how it appeared. I noted earlier that the distinction is between the biological species and behaviour, or between anatomical morphology and neurocognitive function.

All we need with that post is a sharpt cut from a back monolith to a slo mo of a monkey striking some bones with Also Sprach Zarathustra rising to a crescendo.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

how on earth could characteristics be associated with rationality and not actually be rationality itself?

There are lots of behaviors among animals that are associated with rationality. Crows use tools to get food. Bees have complex social systems, including ritual like language. Etc. It is possible for hominids to have these behaviors as well, while remaining animals.

At some point in history, a rational soul was given to a true human, presumably the child of hominids. The hominid behaviors that look like rational behavior are not lost, but the child who has a rational soul will give them a new significance and importance by using them rationally.

You are defining terms to so that they comply with the conclusion you want. Rational behaviour is rational behaviour. Some creatures have it to a greater extent than others. End of story.

If a crow exhibits rational behaviour (by running through a sequence of 5 operations exhibiting tool use in the correct order to obtain food - should be recursive enough for you) then that IS rational behaviour. Your response is nothing more than ‘It can’t be because it’s not a rational animal’. And someone will chime in something to the effect that hey, crows can’t discuss philosophy or write music.

Gee, if it walks and talks like a duck…

 

[Neithan]

Thanks for the laugh.

I can see that bright line so clearly now.

 

[Dovekin]

Gee, if it walks and talks like a duck…

At least we are keeping it to the birds and the bees!

As I have said repeatedly, there is no consistent definition for rational, soul etc. I think the one you offer here is a fine for some uses, but if we apply it to a “rational soul”, then some animals are rational and the whole concept of true men disappears. I doubt that you could get Aquinas to adopt it.

The process I outlined is common in evolution. The eye is an example. Early species react to light, like sunflowers following the sun across the sky. Once the eye becomes a feature, vision takes on a new meaning. Animals diversify so some see wider distances, others see better at night, etc. We do not say sunflowers see, even though their behavior is on a continuum with sight in animals. We distinguish creatures with sight from creatures without sight.

How would you distinguish true men from animals? Do you simply reject HG’s understanding of evolution? Can you show that our “rationality” evolved?

 

[Allyson]

I don’t necessarily have a requirement that they be the MRCA of the whole extant genome

I have not been concerned at any point that we must find a first ancestor by looking for a MRCA. That is why I headed the “but mitochondrial Eve” at the pass with my OP, but someone brought it up again, which took us back down that path for a hot second.

However, if the claim is that every human alive received their fallen nature from Adam and Eve’s choice, then they have to have existed far enough back in time to make it biologically possible that every human alive by, say, the time of Christ had a rational soul by this process. Otherwise the great commission is a fool’s errand because not everyone had a soul to save.

Out of context, sure, you might think my provocative hyperbole as a rhetorical device should elicit such a question, but please go back though that series of replies. @Neithan had thrown out the number of 10,000 years in the comment I was replying to. Since we had previously discussed 70kya, I assumed this was more hypothetical, but wanted to be sure of where he was going with that number. Ultimately he agreed with me that the moment of en-soulment would have to be farther back in time.

Just for your benefit, I know of at least two modern human populations that would have already been cut off from the rest of the world 10,000 years ago. First, Australian Aboriginees who first arrived in Australia 50,000 years ago and had no contact off the continent until the colonial period. Second, all Native Americans from North to South America were descendants of people coming over from Asia between roughly 16,000 and 13,500 years ago before becoming isolated until the colonial period. Therefore, 10,000 years ago is not reasonable.

 

[Gorgias]

@Neithan had thrown out the number of 10,000 years in the comment I was replying to.

Yeah; that sounds far too recent!

 

[niceatheist]

… Biblical Adam certainly didn’t live that recently, but he could be much nearer to us in time than his Y-chromosome ancestor. Adam and Eve as a pair of MRCAs could be as recently as 3,000 BCE if I understand this correctly.

That doesn’t make a lot of sense. While no human population has been severed from the wider gene pool for more than 15k years (the end of the last glacial maximum, when sea levels rose rapidly and a number of key land bridges were severed), for the most part the Amerindians were severed from Old World populations for nearly about 9,000 years until the arrival of the ancestors of the Inuit (estimated at about 6000 years ago from Eastern Siberia). There may have been some small gene flow between the Old and New Worlds, but it would be statistically insignificant, even if we posit the odd Japanese fisherman or Basque fisherman getting stranded in the New World. Even the Viking presence in the New World barely was noticed and was too brief for any significant amount of intermingling with Amerindians in Newfoundland.

There was another population effectively cut off for almost the entire post-glacial period, the Aboriginal peoples of Tasmania, who were cut off from Australia by the formation of Bass Strait, and had no contact with other humans for something on the order of 8,000 years. Unfortunately, they didn’t fare well at all after contact with Europeans, and by the end of the 19th century, no full-blooded Tasmanian survived.

And that’s the problem with taking extant populations and using them solely to calculate the MRCA. Geneticists have run up against this many times. It is a more complex task to determine the MRCA than looking at the most recent ancestor that most people might have. Since we know Amerindians and populations like the Tasmanians predate such a date, we know the actual MRCA, and not just the most recent man or woman to have his or her genes spread throughout the world, is much more distant.

Think of it this way. Domestic dogs descended from Old World grey wolves. But even after that event (which appears to have been multiple domestication events), there remains a steady flow of genes between domestic dog and wolf populations, so you can’t just calculate the MRCA for wolves and dogs based on taking extant populations, because that will show a pretty recent MRCA, and we know that the first domestication happened at least 20,000 years ago, and went calculating that MRCA we have to take into account gene flow that happened AFTER the MRCA.

The real problem here is that the concept of species is actually a fuzzy one. Modern humans most certainly interbred with Neanderthals and Denesovians, and other Eurasian hominids, but those populations existed prior to the first H. sapiens sapiens evolving in Africa.

 

[Neithan]

It makes sense as explained in the article (which is not about Adam and Eve, I just extrapolated that from the identical ancestors possibility), and I didn’t mean to misquote 3,000 BCE as a realistic date accounting for historical events. The “real world” scenario would be adjusted according to prevailing scientific theories.

There may have been some small gene flow between the Old and New Worlds, but it would be statistically insignificant, even if we posit the odd Japanese fisherman or Basque fisherman getting stranded in the New World.

Isn’t that odd migrating fisherman who has children enough to move the MRCA later in time? How much of his genes are statistically significant for everyone now living I’m not sure matters, as long as he is an ancestor.

 

[Ghosty1981]

If a crow exhibits rational behaviour (by running through a sequence of 5 operations exhibiting tool use in the correct order to obtain food - should be recursive enough for you) then that IS rational behaviour.

Following a series of steps to accomplish a task, even complex steps, is not evidence that an entity is abstracting universal concepts from concrete material objects. It is this abstraction of universals that is the hallmark of the immaterial rational mind. Tool making requires a refined brain, but not a spiritual mind.

Making a tool is not evidence of a spiritual mind, but writing an allegorical poem about toolmaking using metaphors is. Metaphors require the kind of abstract thought that does not appear to be possible through strictly material means. Humans are the most excellent tool makers, but it is not this behavior that categorically sets us apart from other animals; human uniqueness isn’t found in what we do better than other animals, but rather in what only we do.

Ants communicate and have a complex society, they even practice a kind of agriculture, but they don’t compose ballads extolling the virtues of queens of old. Too much focus in this discussion being put on strictly material operations that humans happen to excel at (operations that are certainly augmented by an immaterial mind) rather than on operations that actually suggest immaterial rational thought.

Peace and God bless!

 

[niceatheist]

Isn’t that odd migrating fisherman who has children enough to move the MRCA later in time? How much of his genes are statistically significant for everyone now living I’m not sure matters, as long as he is an ancestor.

It’s almost certain the changes in MRCA in the New World happened after the European colonization, as Amerindian peoples throughout the New World intermingled with European settlers. Pre-Columbian contact with Old World populations really would have been so small that it would have been drowned out within a few generations. Within a few centuries, as Europeans encroached upon almost the entire New World that few “pure” (though I detest the term) Amerindians remained.

The same happened at a much more accelerated rate in Tasmania, because there were very few Tasmanians to begin with, but within the space of a couple of centuries of first European contact, there were no poor-blooded Tasmanians.

There’s the famous example of ethnologists and geneticists in the 1980s taking the first steps to tracking the molecular heritage of human migration. Back then, most of the African data they had came from African Americans, the problem being that the average African American’s genome sits at something like one quarter European, due to frequent mixing between white slave owners and their slaves. It was sufficient genetic “noise” that researchers finally had to actually go to Africa.

So what we’re dealing with are two distinct MRCAs, and it’s why identifying an MRCA can be very hard, because sexually-reproducing organisms keep having sex, and in many cases that doesn’t necessarily stop because two populations become significantly genetically distinct. Whether interbreeding between two closely related species leads to no possibility of conception, or sterile offspring, or to viable hybrids depends a lot on developmental biology, and conception and production of viable germ cells is due to a whole lot of different genes and chromosomal issues. Even differing chromosome counts in the parents doesn’t always mean impossibility of conception or production of virile offspring. Heck, in some cases the biggest barrier isn’t interfertility at a chromosomal level, it’s that the sexual behaviors or timing of estrus is off just enough that it makes actual copulation itself very unlikely.

 

[niceatheist]

I think even here you can run into problems. There’s fairly significant evidence that at least some other mammals are capable of some degree of abstract thinking. Some species are even known for cultural transmission, though because they do not possess complex language, it’s very inefficient. It’s likely the explanation why hominid toolkits, including Neanderthal toolkits, seemed to stay so static for such extraordinary periods of time. They were capable of making tools, clearly capable of transmitting that knowledge to others, and thus technology, as a form of cultural transmission did occur in hominids, and does occur among some primates even now. But because they don’t possess a language capability (and all the neurological hardware that goes with it), there are sharp limits on what can be transmitted, and how quickly innovation can occur.

Writing of poetry is a sign of a whole new order of neural capability. Certainly it’s built on top of pre-existing brain structure, but the magic ingredient of symbolism isn’t there. A great ape can be taught a lexicon, can even learn enough to communicate feelings or desires, but primate language lacks key elements like displacement. Small children go through such a phase, and there’s evidence that where a child is somehow prevented from acquiring language, that by the age of five or six, the brain never wires itself, and they are at best capable of proto-language, which while complex, does not possess grammatical or syntactical elements found in human language. And there are theorists out there like Chomsky that are pretty darned sure that the acquisition of language itself effects how we think. So there is certainly a strong genetic component to language acquisition, but there’s also a very strong developmental component, and genetic predisposition, sadly, in the very few cases of extreme child abuse where a child has been rendered incapable of language acquisition, is robbed not only of the ability to speak full human language, but probably also never develops the kind of post-natal brain wiring that effects other areas of cognition.

 

[Gorgias]

But because they don’t possess a language capability (and all the neurological hardware that goes with it), there are sharp limits

So, if the definition of rationality includes the whole kit-and-caboodle, and not just traces or emerging bits, then we could reasonably define such an entity as “not rational”? Would that be fair?

 

[niceatheist]

niceatheist:

But because they don’t possess a language capability (and all the neurological hardware that goes with it), there are sharp limits

So, if the definition of rationality includes the whole kit-and-caboodle, and not just traces or emerging bits, then we could reasonably define such an entity as “not rational”? Would that be fair?

Only insofar that other animals do not possess human-like rationality. But that seems a fairly circular definition. And it leaves open a major problem. What is the status of those individuals who I referred to above who through child abuse never went through the critical language acquisition phase in the first few years of their lives. They appear to lack some of the cognitive abilities found in all other humans.

From a scientific standpoint the explanation is that language acquisition is part nature and part nurture, that genetically we have the potential for human language and other related cognitive phenomena, but there are a series of post-natal trigger points that don’t happen which means the brain never wires itself properly. In other words, they get, in some ways, cognitively stuck.

From a theological, or more broadly a dualist point of view, that raises serious questions about what the soul is, or when it is conferred. If the soul is the “anima” of humans, do these individuals lack a soul?

A philosopher of science once told me that the most profound challenge to Classical notions of the soul (which the Judeo-Christian religions largely inherited), isn’t evolution, which really just describes how modern life forms developed from earlier forms (Darwinian evolution), but developmental biology. Developmental biology has been shaking a lot of houses since the 19th century, and it’s why I think trying to tie theological or philosophical notions of “soul” or “rational soul” to specific physical phenomena or processes is bound to be fraught with problems.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Developmental biology has been shaking a lot of houses since the 19th century, and it’s why I think trying to tie theological or philosophical notions of “soul” or “rational soul” to specific physical phenomena or processes is bound to be fraught with problems.

I think Thomistic notions of soul and body don’t completely work. But not necessarily because of developmental biology (which is a very interesting subject). The Classical philosophers didn’t have any concept of evolution, so theres no way to get from a regular hominid soul to an immortal human soul.

However, they would have known that not every person turns out to be “rational”, but I believe they squared that by using the idea of “natures”. Which is fine to explain why every human has an immortal soul, but it doesn’t explain how, evolutionarily speaking, a regular soul turns into an immortal soul. So their methods seem to fail on that point.

 

[niceatheist]

niceatheist:

Developmental biology has been shaking a lot of houses since the 19th century, and it’s why I think trying to tie theological or philosophical notions of “soul” or “rational soul” to specific physical phenomena or processes is bound to be fraught with problems.

I think Thomistic notions of soul and body don’t completely work. But not necessarily because of developmental biology (which is a very interesting subject). The Classical philosophers didn’t have any concept of evolution, so theres no way to get from a regular hominid soul to an immortal human soul.

However, they would have known that not every person turns out to be “rational”, but I believe they squared that by using the idea of “natures”. Which is fine to explain why every human has an immortal soul, but it doesn’t explain how, evolutionarily speaking, a regular soul turns into an immortal soul. So their methods seem to fail on that point.

I think that’s the safest ground from a philosophical and theological point of view. If we start asserting there’s a “soul gene” or an “original sin gene”, then does that mean CRISPR can transplant souls on to other animals, or that a sinless human can be created by editing sin out of the human genome?

But that was my friend’s point, that trying to square Classical views of the soul with the physical nature of humans creates some rather thorny issues. None of it is going to make original sin easily explainable in a biological sense. If one believes in Original Sin, one has to accept that either Adam and Eve are somewhat metaphorical, or that all humans in existence at the time of the Fall were stained by original sin. I think the latter creates a whole host of theological issues, while the latter isn’t going to satisfy those that insist that the account of Adam and Eve’s fall was a literal, or at least singular event.

 

[Gorgias]

And it leaves open a major problem. What is the status of those individuals who I referred to above who through child abuse never went through the critical language acquisition phase in the first few years of their lives. They appear to lack some of the cognitive abilities found in all other humans.

We’d say that they didn’t develop the skills for which humans have potential, right?

genetically we have the potential for human language and other related cognitive phenomena, but there are a series of post-natal trigger points that don’t happen which means the brain never wires itself properly. In other words, they get, in some ways, cognitively stuck.

Right. And, if a person is born with potential, but some facet of physical development doesn’t occur, we don’t suddenly claim they’re non-human, right?

If the soul is the “anima” of humans, do these individuals lack a soul?

No; but the effects aren’t developed as they normally tend to develop. Same story, right?

 

[Neithan]

Only insofar that other animals do not possess human-like rationality. But that seems a fairly circular definition.

We’re looking for signs of a speculative intellect.

If the soul is the “anima” of humans, do these individuals lack a soul?

A physical or cognitive disability, even by our descriptive language, indicates a lack of potential ability. The body of that particular person is limited by the material defect, but not the spiritual form.

A philosopher of science once told me that the most profound challenge to Classical notions of the soul (which the Judeo-Christian religions largely inherited), isn’t evolution, which really just describes how modern life forms developed from earlier forms (Darwinian evolution), but developmental biology […]

I’m guessing he would be referring to some Cartesian idea, or Platonic. Certainly not a Thomistic or scholastic one. Or it could be a misconception. A main problem underlying these kinds of discussions I see is a kind of prevalent meme in the culture, no doubt through all the agnosticism in the education system since the 19th century and the ideology of some Enlightenment thinkers, that natural science is somehow incompatible with classical or Catholic philosophy, when the truth is that they rest on the same axioms. It’s a false dilemma that stubbornly persists.

 

[Neithan]

Which is fine to explain why every human has an immortal soul, but it doesn’t explain how, evolutionarily speaking, a regular soul turns into an immortal soul.

Evolution is of matter, and every animal has some form, right? I don’t see the difficulty. At some point, the form is the form that God wills to be a spiritual form.

I honestly, really don’t see the apparently enormous obstacle that so many seem to be circling around. Maybe I have a blind spot? Evolution, physics, genetics, biology, paleoanthropology and zoology etc. is all Creation + time.

 

[niceatheist]

niceatheist:

And it leaves open a major problem. What is the status of those individuals who I referred to above who through child abuse never went through the critical language acquisition phase in the first few years of their lives. They appear to lack some of the cognitive abilities found in all other humans.

We’d say that they didn’t develop the skills for which humans have potential, right?

genetically we have the potential for human language and other related cognitive phenomena, but there are a series of post-natal trigger points that don’t happen which means the brain never wires itself properly. In other words, they get, in some ways, cognitively stuck.

Right. And, if a person is born with potential, but some facet of physical development doesn’t occur, we don’t suddenly claim they’re non-human, right?

If the soul is the “anima” of humans, do these individuals lack a soul?

No; but the effects aren’t developed as they normally tend to develop. Same story, right?

Which then leads to the question. If there is a soul, what does it do? Perhaps that is the entire crux of the problem. The only way I, admittedly not a scholar on either Thomistic or Classical philosophy, can see that it works is that the soul itself does nothing, save perhaps record the personality, memory, emotions, so that that person can be resurrected, even in spirit form.

I look at other animals with fairly sophisticated brains; apes, cetaceans, elephants, possibly some birds like genus Corvus, and they are certainly capable of aspects of reason; planning (which involves being able to apply some abstract concept to create a physical object like a tool or a procedure), possess emotions, and indeed a personality. Animals are even capable of mental disorders like PTSD.

So it seems to me that if there is a soul, it is a far more nebulous entity that is affected by the physical brain of humans, but in and of itself has no animating factor. Thus, I suppose, one could say before God conferred a soul upon humans, they by and large behaved like modern humans, but possessed no immortal soul. As some here would doubtless say, they have no spiritual existence.

 

[Gorgias]

Which then leads to the question. If there is a soul, what does it do?

“Yearn for union with the God who created it and gave it life”, would be my answer.

There’s more to it than that, of course, in Aquinas’ thought. It is the seat of intelligence and will, for one.