What does science say about polygenism? Is it proven? Or not?

[buffalo]

Polygenism has not been proven.

 

[buffalo]

Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?

A literal Adam and Eve remains rationally, scientifically credible.

Since the same God is author both of human reason and of authentic revelation, legitimate natural science, properly conducted, will never contradict Catholic doctrine, properly understood. Catholic doctrine still maintains that a literal Adam and Eve must have existed, a primal couple who committed that personal original sin, which occasioned the need for, and the divine promise of, the coming of the Redeemer, Jesus Christ.

Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?

Pure myth! That is today’s typical view of a literal Adam and Eve. Yet, contrary to current skepticism, a real Adam and Eve remain credible—both in terms of Catholic doctrine and sound natural science.

www.crisismagazine.com

 

[bobperk]

Of course there was a grandparent.

Ah, yes. I remember seeing this one. Any time a new, “undiscovered” fossil is found, it immediately becomes our “oldest known ancestor.” One can only have pity for the poor souls who write these articles and think they have published a groundbreaking discovery.

 

[tafan2]

Why humans are all much more related than you think

All humans can trace their family tree back to a surprisingly small group of common ancestors. Every person on Earth's most recent common ancestor might

gizmodo.com

Good article on common ancestors. Our most recent common ancestors likely lived less than 10000 years ago. Several thousand years from now, most of us will be common ancestors to everyone alive at that time.

 

[Annie]

Thanks for clarifying that for me!

 

[Annie]

What would the difference be between our most recent common ancestor and m-Eve and y-c- Adam?

 

[Gorgias]

Are you and your cousins on your mother’s side all descended from the same two grandparents?

Not necessarily. They might be cousins by virtue of a half- or step-uncle or -aunt.

Then why is there any discussion at all among Catholics about polygenism and evolution? It’s because there is no way to square the story in Genesis with what had been proven through genetics - that being, there was no single pair of MRCA’s that begot the rest humanity. Remember, Adam and Eve are a couple, singular, the opposite of the prefix poly.

Sure there is. Adam and Eve could be the first humans in a population of unensouled hominins.

What would the difference be between our most recent common ancestor and m-Eve and y-c- Adam?

m-Eve and yc-Adam would be MRCAs only in the matrilinear or patrilinear sides, but not when considering both.

 

[stephenSTOSS1]

Genetic research has shown that mitochondrial Eve, and Y-chromosome Adam did not live at the same time. So yes, scientific evidence has proven polygenesis of humans. Not to mention 2-5% Neanderthal DNA in humans.

No, that is not correct. First of all, the common ancestor talked about in Stone et al, is not biblical Eve, nor is it Biblical Adam. The researchers made a critical error in their modeling that makes their conculsions invalid when talking about Adam and Eve in the Bible. In fact, in a two-part blog that I wrote about mtEve and Bible Eve, I show how the research actually contributes to proving that the Genesis account of Adam and Eve’s creation should be interpreted as historically literal and factual.

Part I talks about this from the standpoint of Scripture. Part II talks about it from the scientific standpoint. Here is the link to Part II

 

[stephenSTOSS1]

I find the writings of that organization to be somewhat problematic. The Pontifical Bible Commission tells us that, in order interpret Scripture correctly, it must be interpreted in light of the entire Canon of Scripture. The writers at Thomistic Evolution fail to do that on a major scale. Their theories may sound great, but they contradict a large number of Bible passages concerning Adam and Eve. I would not recommend their page at all.

Secondly, they are trying to second guess the Pope’s intentions when it come to the wording of #37 of Humani Generis. The pope chose his wording because he is aware of the existence of scientific polygenism (involving biology only … not rational humans). This is not the same as polygenism in the theological sense. So the Pope chose his wording to not resurrect, so to speak, the old Galileo controversy … that the Church is anti-science.

Most people are familiar with the wording of #37 of Humani Generis. We are not allowed to hold the opinion that either before or after Adam, there existed rational men who did not descend directly from Adam, or that Adam and Eve merely represent a group of people. What most people miss is #20 of the same encyclical. It states that when the Pope goes out of his way to say we can’t hold an opinion about polygenism … he is applying his Supreme Teaching Authority to that statement.

I am reading a lot of incorrect statements being made in this thread because people are misinterpreting the science, the entire Canon of Scripture regarding Adam and Eve, and the Genesis account of their creation. Some light can be shed on this topic mtEve and the Bible

 

[rossum]

Several thousand years from now, most of us will be common ancestors to everyone alive at that time.

Either that, or ancestors to nobody. Go far enough back and everyone alive at that time is either a universal ancestor or has no living descendants. Using the Biblical example, Seth is a universal ancestor (through Noah) while Abel has no living descendants.

rossum

 

[bobperk]

The “suddenly ensouled hominins” theory just sweeps away traditional exegesis and parallels of Sacred Scripture. Christ had a lance thrust in His side while on the cross, the blood pouring forth symbolizing and creating Holy Mother Church from His side. So an actual event symbolized the creation of something else. Likewise, Eve from Adam’s side, for centuries widely considered a literal event, created woman and marriage.

But the “ensouled hominin” stance just throws that holy parallel out the window. Apparently the actual piercing of our Lord’s side is related only to the symbolic creation of Eve from Adam’s side.

 

[stephenSTOSS1]

It also ignores the parallels used by St. Paul when he sets up a comparison between Adam (one man, one act of sin) with Jesus (one man, one act of Redemption). If Adam and Eve were merely representations of multiple people, Paul’s parallels would cease to be parallels. On the other side, we didn’t have multiple Jesus’ redeem us.

 

[tafan2]

Either that, or ancestors to nobody. Go far enough back and everyone alive at that time is either a universal ancestor or has no living descendants. Using the Biblical example, Seth is a universal ancestor (through Noah) while Abel has no living descendants.

Good examples, I read once that if we have descendants past 3 generations, we will likely end up a common ancestor to everyone. If our line dies off, it normally does so pretty quickly.

 

[Gorgias]

Stephen,

Just wanted to offer some comments on your objections:

I find the writings of that organization to be somewhat problematic. The Pontifical Bible Commission tells us that, in order interpret Scripture correctly, it must be interpreted in light of the entire Canon of Scripture. The writers at Thomistic Evolution fail to do that on a major scale. Their theories may sound great, but they contradict a large number of Bible passages concerning Adam and Eve.

To be fair, what you really mean here is that they “contradict my interpretation of a large number of Bible passages concerning Adam and Eve.” After all, it’s all about interpretation, right? So, if you believe that they’re in error, it’s really their interpretation of the Bible as distinct from yours, and not the Bible itself, that you’re talking about. In other words, you can’t rely on the argument from authority here, implying that they’re running afoul of the Bible.

Secondly, they are trying to second guess the Pope’s intentions when it come to the wording of #37 of Humani Generis.

Umm… that process is called “interpretation”, not “second guessing”. Unless, of course, you’re simply attempting to disparage their interpretation…

 

[Gorgias]

The “suddenly ensouled hominins” theory just sweeps away traditional exegesis and parallels of Sacred Scripture.

You mean like the “heliocentric” theory swept away traditional exegesis hundreds of years ago? Yeah, I can see the problem with that…

 

[buffalo]

Everyone should read Humani Generis completely.

 

[buffalo]

Science says that at no point has the population of Homo sapiens ever fallen as low as two. The lowest estimates I have seen are around 10,000 to 20,000 breeding pairs around 70,000 years ago. The number of alleles we share with chimpanzees indicate that the “more than two” population estimate goes as far back as our separation from our LCA with chimps.

Don’t be so sure. Not all science says that.

As we speak testable models of original first parents are being created.

 

[stephenSTOSS1]

I find the writings of that organization to be somewhat problematic. The Pontifical Bible Commission tells us that, in order interpret Scripture correctly, it must be interpreted in light of the entire Canon of Scripture. The writers at Thomistic Evolution fail to do that on a major scale. Their theories may sound great, but they contradict a large number of Bible passages concerning Adam and Eve.

No, I am actually echoing the interpretations of some pretty heavy weight theologogians. For example, Ludwig Ott who wrote The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (a book used extensively in seminaries as part of their theological education) who quoted a large number of those passages to confirm the historical literal interpretation of Adam and Eve’s creation; Msgr. Charles Pope, who wrote specifically about polygenism; and Denziger, who, at the request of one of the Popes (can’t remember which one) compiled all Church documents according to topics each writing addressed. Denziger included the topic of polygenism under a title that went something like: theological threats to the very foundation of the Church.

Secondly, they are trying to second guess the Pope’s intentions when it come to the wording of #37 of Humani Generis.

They could not know the mind of the Pope. The clues suggest they were second guessing.

 

[rossum]

As we speak testable models of original first parents are being created.

I will be interested to see those models and the results of the tests.

rossum

 

[edwest211]

Science can’t say anything about souls. So, no, no valid argument.