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

[Freddy]

Evidence is a fact in answer to a question that makes a claim more likely to be true.

1. Did human intelligence change abruptly?

Exhibit A:

niceatheist:

While where along our lineage language arose is a tough question to answer, one thing is clear, somewhere around 150,000 years ago, give or take, there seems to have been a revolution in cognition.

As much as I admire niceatheist’s ability in presenting a cogent argument, I can’t see anyone using a quote from him as evidence for a generational change which I believe was your claim.

 

[Gorgias]

Then what in this case do you think they tell us?

The dog remembers pain, and avoids it. No higher thought processes or rationality required.

The sequence of events tells us nothing about evidence of rational thought. Nor does your repeated appeal to this particular anecdote of animal behavior.

 

[Allyson]

What about the dolphin example I posted earlier?

 

[Allyson]

Okay, that I can work with

First off, I am not referencing one particular study in the title. Rather, it is general consensus based on the evidence we have at this point in time. The estimate differ, but the smallest is still significant at 700 individuals. More likely we are looking at 10,000.

Second, I see no reason to doubt the most up to date data we have. More data will tell us more. I am not considering out of date information because, by definition, something else has improved our understanding. Your statement:

I wonder also why so much credulity is placed in “science” - especially since so much of current science is disputed, disproved or simply dated?

seems odd to me. The nature of science is to expand knowledge through testing and discussion. If there is dispute, then it is being done right. The only people who question the validity of science are science deniers, which the Church is not.

Finally, the whole idea of the thread was to see what solutions there are to the difference between what we know about human origins through natural science with what the Church teaches.

 

[Gorgias]

What about the dolphin example I posted earlier?

The assertion about young female dolphins mimicking their mothers’ behavior, while young male dolphins not doing so?

I think I would respond that, if that were true, then it would be necessary to consider any and all gender-specific behavior in the animal kingdom to be evidence of rationality. Trust me: having chaperoned junior-high-school dances, there’s no way I’d support that claim…

 

[Allyson]

And I would say that the female in every species is wiser

But more seriously. This is a novel behavior that started relatively recently. It is not easily dismissed as “just being learned through imitation.” To the extent that there is demonstration by a parent, there is likely to be imitation by a calf. From that experience the calf will abstract the context for when to use that behavior. It is no different from how human children learn. There is something peculiar about males not imitating the behavior, and that is due to a choice.

 

[Neithan]

From that experience the calf will abstract the context for when to use that behavior.

Why is abstraction necessary here? That only adds an unnecessary step where there is memory and imitation. It is not abductively warranted.

 

[po18guy]

To show what a curmudgeon I am, I have developed an aversion to almost all things “modern” - from scripture interpretation and exegesis to what strikes me as agenda-driven “science.”

Science amasses data. And, just as it is with bookkeeping, numbers can be cooked to demonstrate just about anything. For this reason I rather think that any scientific conclusion must pass the test of time. Disproved either one or 100 years from now means that it is inaccurate today.

Evolution is stressed as truth even though what we seem to observe is devolution and/or entropy in genetics. I am alive due to scientific advancement in medicine, which is where we stand to tangibly benefit.

Despite a certain Luddite tinge in my mindset, there is one aspect of scientific and technological development I do favor: The ability to be beamed up by Mr. Scott.

 

[Allyson]

Why is abstraction necessary here?

This is definitely a case of, I do not mean by this word what you mean by this word. Substitute “generalize” if that helps, but it is not as concise.

 

[Allyson]

We are all allowed to be a curmudgeon about something

I come from a family loaded with scientists who are Catholic and with the obligatory priest thrown in. I had a healthy dose of both growing up. The bad science will out, and that is no good reason to reject the good science.

On balance science has advanced, and will continue to do so so long as people care.

Evolution is very much a fact. I am not sure what you are referring to as devolution. I am also not sure that entropy is necessarily a problem for genetics given the 3.5 billion years of life on this planet and counting. If anything, it provides a beneficial driver for genetic diversity.

 

[Freddy]

To show what a curmudgeon I am, I have developed an aversion to almost all things “modern” - from scripture interpretation and exegesis to what strikes me as agenda-driven “science.”

Science amasses data. And, just as it is with bookkeeping, numbers can be cooked to demonstrate just about anything. For this reason I rather think that any scientific conclusion must pass the test of time. Disproved either one or 100 years from now means that it is inaccurate today.

I’m not sure what you mean by scientific conclusion. There is evidence (which is known facts about the world) and there are theories which attempt to explain the evidence. I guess you could claim that a theory is conclusive if it comprehensively explains the evidence compared to any other competing theory.

It is quite rare for an accepted theory to be thrown out completely. Generally it will be found that it needs to be revised as more evidence or better evidence is collected to better explain that evidence.

It would be a very strange world where this didn’t happen.

 

[Gorgias]

This is a novel behavior that started relatively recently.

No. This is behavior that was observed relatively recently. Critical difference.

Nevertheless, what you seem to be asserting is that dolphins did not possess critical rational intelligence, but only recent did so. Care to substantiate that assertion, aside from the admission that “gee, we never noticed it previously”?

To the extent that there is demonstration by a parent, there is likely to be imitation by a calf.

Fine. I can offer the nuance that “to the extent that there is a demonstration by a parent, there is likely to be imitation by a calf of the same gender.” See how neither my assertion nor yours proves ‘rationality’?

There is something peculiar about males not imitating the behavior, and that is due to a choice.

Two thoughts:

• ‘choice’ doesn’t imply ‘rationality’.
• the ‘choice’ here can be attributed to gender-specific mimicry.

Substitute “generalize” if that helps, but it is not as concise.

“Generalization” doesn’t imply rationality; “abstraction” does.

 

[Allyson]

No. This is behavior that was observed relatively recently. Critical difference.

On the contrary, you are making a distinction without a difference. I almost get the sense that you did not bother to read about the history of the behavior and the scientific study thereof. Which explains why you ask me to substantiate that this is a new behavior.

I also get the sense that you have no phenomena that you would accept as evidence of rationality.

These Dolphins Are Using Sea Sponges as Tools

And a new discovery suggests that it changes their diet—just like technology changes ours.

www.theatlantic.com

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms1983

 

[Dovekin]

Dovekin:

Freddy:

I’m finding this very frustrating, I must say.

Is it not the case that every single aspect of any given creature has evolved slowly over a considerable amount of time?

No, that is not the case. Punctuated equilibrium, cladogenesis, rapid evolution are some of the terms biologists use to discuss alternatives to gradualism.

…
there is ZERO evidence for abrupt changes in intelligence in our species.

Very frustrating.

The issue is whether rationality is a qualitative change, or only a quantitative accumulation of behaviors. Length of time it takes is a distraction from the discussion. I have said repeatedly we cannot tell without defining rational and soul better; if one takes a considerable amount of time, and the other does not, that would be a way to tell.

So we get it. You think rationality is a set of accumulated characteristics rather than a way of using those characteristics. How does that help us understand original sin, Humani Generis, and Pius XII?

 

[Neithan]

I also get the sense that you have no phenomena that you would accept as evidence of rationality.

How do we conclude that human beings are rational? We talk to them, or read what they have written. Is there any non-verbal — or non-scribal, if we broaden it to include communicable numerical formulae — way to validly infer rationality?

Oh there’s another way I just realized: we can inspect things that animals have drawn or sculpted or assembled etc.

 

[Allyson]

This just popped up today in case anyone is interested.

https://www.npr.org/2020/02/12/805237120/ghost-dna-in-west-africans-complicates-story-of-human-origins?utm_term=nprnews&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=npr&utm_medium=social

 

[Allyson]

Being cheeky because it is late

Dolphins have learned our language, but we have yet to learn theirs. Maybe they think we are the irrational ones. Lol.

 

[po18guy]

All science is a conclusion, based on data known at the time the conclusions were arrived at. We cannot know the complete import of any scientific study - only that which is both revealed and comprehensible to us.

Man purports to know with certainty the complexities of the universe while many of the effects of aspirin, for but one example, remain a mystery.

We more often resemble the creature upon which our Lord rode into Jerusalem.

 

[Neithan]

Well memory and imitation are impressive abilities.

And computers are rational, too, if we’re talking strictly about inferring rationality from phenomena.

Getting back to the OP: Can you present a hypothesis using the language in Humani Generis with a scientific theory that you believe is true?

 

[EricPH]

Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past,”

How could life evolve without God?