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

[neophyte]

Galileo and Giordano Bruno immediately come to mind.

I’m not surprised, there is a huge popular mythology about them.

 

[Neithan]

but I do not think you are going to find a moment where the switch was flipped.

On the contrary: There must have been a point in time when precisely such a “switch” was “flipped”; one first human — or first generation, in the incredible chance that it happened simultaneously — when some genetic mutation enabled recursive language, and all of the capabilities for rational abstraction that we now enjoy with it. Listen to Prof. Richard Dawkins discuss the point here starting at 45:05.

One of the best speculative solutions to this problem was written by professor of biology and theology Fr. Nicanor Pier Giorgio Austriaco, O.P. You can find a summary of his conclusion on the Thomistic Evolution blog [Scroll to the bottom for comment on Neanderthals and Denisovans.] Perhaps you’ve read it already. What do you think?

 

[goout]

One of the best speculative solutions to this problem was written by professor of biology and theology

That is a well thought article.
And it’s true that it’s speculative. This side of the mirror, we will never know the full truth on this issue, because we are talking about God gracing his creation with a soul.
And that mysterious gift of God should be both
1 beyond human understanding
2 and a cause for wonder, reflection and study.

Because the study of the matter can help us find God, IF we have minds open to science and theology.

 

[Allyson]

I will take a look at the articles linked. I believed I watched a talk by Fr. Nicanor online regarding this topic. I enjoyed his talk, but for me, I think his theories on how to reconcile monogenism and genetics got a bit tenuous at the end of the talk I watched. (I will get back to that point when I post later, but I do not think he was using monogenism as Pius XII understood it). Since 2012, we now know that language is not controlled by just one gene. Like many traits, it is controlled by many genes, which would have mutated and been selected for over time. It is much more likely that over time, as human culture evolved, we created proto-grammatical structures (as indicated by Dawkins in the clip) that were later utilized in a more formal way as genes were selected out or for by natural selection.

The FoxP2 gene, which is different in Neanderthals than it is in us controls muscle function. So, they may have made different sounds from us, but that does not tell us much about their language comprehension. There are experiments being done with brain organelles that are engineered with Neanderthal genes to compare with human genes in the early stages of brain development that might helps tell us more of the story. The Neanderthal variant is one of the genes modern homo sapien is known to have today. That gene was totally replaced to the best of our knowledge.

Studying how other apes comprehend and learn to use human language does give us some in sight to the language/communications capabilities of our common ancestors. As noted in the Dawkins discussion, it does not have the nuance of grammar. Unfortunately, we are the last human sub-species in existence, so we need to look at the next best thing, which are the differences in genes.

 

[Neithan]

Since 2012, we now know that language is not controlled by just one gene.

I didn’t know they ever thought language to be controlled by only one gene. Dawkins discusses multiple.

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.]

 

[Allyson]

I didn’t know they ever thought language to be controlled by only one gene. Dawkins discusses multiple.

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 was thinking that the book my Chomsky that Fr. Nicanor relied on in the talk I saw came out close in time to the Dawkins talk. It actually came out a little later, but back in that Chomsky was promoting the idea of a genetic leap that has been panned. There was time when it was hoped that we would find one key gene that explains human language, and this is just not the case.

Apologies for any confusion there.

I will check out the “Romulus and Remus” hypothesis, although 70,000 years ago seems rather late in the game for such a radical change to have happened. I will be interested in seeing what the basis is for that date.

 

[Gorgias]

There was time when it was hoped that we would find one key gene that explains human language, and this is just not the case.

We’re still working on the scientific side of things in a quest to find the ‘soul’. Still barking up the wrong tree, I’d assert.

Nevertheless, I think it might be valuable to consider whether rationality causes language, or if it merely enables it. If the latter, then the presence of a single gene, or even a passel of them, doesn’t imply that language spontaneously appeared. More to the point, it doesn’t make the assertion that an ensouled person suddenly began composing speeches.

In other words: yet again, we see that the search for a one-to-one correspondence between “rationality” and “ensoulment” appears to be a lost cause.

 

[Allyson]

In other words: yet again, we see that the search for a one-to-one correspondence between “rationality” and “ensoulment” appears to be a lost cause.

I was going to get to this later, but why do you keep separating rationality from the soul? The traditional position of the Church is that being made in the Image of God includes having a rational or intellectual soul - not just that it is immortal. A kind of soul that is different from the souls of other animals - who have mortal souls.

 

[Neithan]

I was thinking that the book my Chomsky that Fr. Nicanor relied on in the talk I saw came out close in time to the Dawkins talk. It actually came out a little later, but back in that Chomsky was promoting the idea of a genetic leap that has been panned. There was time when it was hoped that we would find one key gene that explains human language, and this is just not the case.

That is confusing because in the linked blog, Fr. Nicanor does not hinge any speculation on a single key gene, but refers to the “acquisition of a package of pro-language mutations in the human genome” which produced a “novel capacity for language” — that seems similar to Dr. Vyshedskiy’s neurocognitive hypothesis (although the blog was published in 2016, three years earlier). Maybe Fr. Nicanor just refined that part of the discussion since the talk you saw?

 

[Gorgias]

I was going to get to this later, but why do you keep separating rationality from the soul?

Only inasmuch as there seems to be an implicit (but not well-defined) linkage that tries to suggest that physical signs of rationality → presence of soul. Science would never make that suggestion, so it’s unreasonable (IMHO) to attempt to make that suggestion in our context, here.

The traditional position of the Church is that being made in the Image of God includes having a rational or intellectual soul - not just that it is immortal.

So, let’s look at this carefully: the rational soul doesn’t ratiocinate. Rather, the intellect, utilizing the capacities of the physical body, ratiocinates. So, there’s a distinct question to ask: does the presence of a rational soul imply the presence of ratiocination? And if not, then there could be the presence of a soul without any evidence of rational behavior.

At best, then, if we were willing to use science as direct evidence of spiritual realities – and I’m not certain we want to make those sorts of claims, and I’m positive that secular scientists don’t! – the best that we might hope for is to draw a line and say “souls were present, at the very latest, by this point in time.”

Let’s take it a bit further. We’ve talked about behaviors which we posit as evidence of rationality in humans, but we also say that we see similar behaviors in the animal kingdom. To naively assert that these animal behaviors are evidence of rationality in animals is unfounded and unproven.

So, let’s extend that argument: if we see these behaviors – which, when seen in humans, we identify as rational behaviors, but when we see in animals, we cannot prove are rational, but which may be simple projection of human capacities on irrational animals – and we might say “maybe human and rational, maybe not” … then isn’t it possible that what we’re observing in archeological evidence might likewise be mere “lookalike” behaviors and not, in their very selves, actual signs of rationality?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Wasn’t it to decide what posesses rationality? If you are of the opinion that nothing except man posesses it then it seems a fool’s errand.

The problem here is with assumptions being made about what “rationality” means. It’s really not useful at all to try to use such a broad term to define that which makes humans unique. Using the word rationality in order to separate humans from animals is a very outdated notion. I mean like really outdated.

We are using the term because it is used as a basis for proving that Man has a soul which is (assumed to be) immortal and that leads to the existence of God.

The proposal is that man, as a rational animal has a soul etc. But if we try to determine the definition of ‘a rational animal’ to see if it just applies to man then we get arguments that rationality can only be ascribed to man. In which case the clause ‘as a rational animal’ is superfluous and cannot be part of the argument for God.

You might as well say that ‘Man, being a man, has a soul…’ and be done with it.

 

[Allyson]

Here is a link to the talk. It is more recent than 2016.

 

[Freddy]

Another debate doubting the difference between the rationality of humans and the instincts of animals.
Truly amazing that this happens post-enlightenment.

That man is an animal is not debated. That we evolved from animals that weren’t what we now class as human is not debated. That those animals were not rational at some point is obvious. That rationality simply emerged one Tuesday afternoon at some point is nonsensical.

So it is therefore without question a fact that the ability to make rational decisons gradually evolved. So it is patently obvious that there is no distinct dividing line between rational and non rational. It is simply a matter of degree.

What the argument should be is not that man exhibits rational behaviour and other animals do not. It is that at this point, man exhibits a greater degree of rationality than other animals. And apparently, when he gets to a specific point (maybe a Tuesday, who can tell) he gets a soul.

That makes sense to some people. I’m not one of them, goout.

 

[Freddy]

Personally, I think this question itself is an unhelpful tangent. We’re not talking about rationality – we’re talking about immortal human souls. “Rationality” doesn’t help us get there.

I’ll let you take that up with Aquinas.

 

[Neithan]

That rationality simply emerged one Tuesday afternoon at some point is nonsensical.

Actually: that rationality can “emerge” at all is what is nonsensical. [See the Argument from Reason.] Maybe we can call that kind of vague dismissal the “evolution of the gaps” fallacy: positing some sort of gradual emergence of something in general as equivocal with gradual emergence in particular.

Since the capacity for recursive language is a necessary condition for abstract reasoning, then its presence in one (or a group in one generation of) modern human(s) who at some point in time must have made the first abstract rational movement from ground to consequent (I don’t know if it was a Tuesday, or an afternoon ) is what makes sense.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

That rationality simply emerged one Tuesday afternoon at some point is nonsensical.

Actually: that rationality can “emerge” at all is what is nonsensical. [See the Argument from Reason.] Maybe we can call that kind of vague dismissal the “evolution of the gaps” fallacy: positing some sort of gradual emergence of something in general as equivocal with gradual emergence in particular.

Since the capacity for recursive language is a necessary condition for abstract reasoning, then its presence in one (or a group in one generation of) modern human(s) who at some point in time must have made the first abstract rational movement from ground to consequent (I don’t know if it was a Tuesday, or an afternoon ) is what makes sense.

Nobody suggested it emerged. But that it evolved. The two things are completely different.

You need to be aware that there never was a time when one species of animal suddenly became another. And that there never was a distinct line between Homo sapiens and the species that immediately proceeded us.

So we became slightly more what we class as human and slightly less Homo erectus. There are no bright dividing lines. There never was a point when something could only breath underwater and then could breath on land. There never was a specific point when something couldn’t fly and then could. And however you want to define rationality, there never was a point where we weren’t rational and then were.

It would be like suggesting that we weren’t intelligent one day but were intelligent the next. Whatever day of the week you choose.

 

[Neithan]

Thank you for the link. I watched the talk entirely and enjoyed it. I see where Fr. Nicanor cites Berwick and Chomsky’s book as an example of how genetic mutation may have resulted in the “novel capacity for language” and rationality. It appears to be meant as one possibly illustrative example: since it’s not mentioned in the original blog, we can give him the benefit of the doubt that he wasn’t tethering his speculations to the authors’ assumptions — including the idea of a single gene (if that was Chomsky’s idea, I haven’t read the book).

 

[Allyson]

Indeed, I did not mean to suggest that he was tethering his idea to theirs, but he did seem to see it as potentially affirming his hypothesis that Adam, and his descendents were the first to have language and self-segregated. It was that idea that I found tenuous, since in evolution, change is progressive, and small alterations are not noticable between single generations.

It had the sound of a just-so story to me. An interesting proposition, but not strongly persuasive.

 

[Neithan]

And however you want to define rationality, there never was a point where we weren’t rational and then were.

You can take a broader definition of rationality such that many animals comply with the criteria, but that’s begging the question. There is no bright dividing line for biological species, but there is a bright line dividing human behavior, and that is the point at issue here: what accounts for it? Recursive language fits the account, and a point in our evolution when it was, where before it was not.

 

[Neithan]

It was that idea that I found tenuous, since in evolution, change is progressive, and small alterations are not noticable between single generations.

It had the sound of a just-so story to me. An interesting proposition, but not strongly persuasive.

Hmm. So you are not persuaded by Dawkins’ description?