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

[buffalo]

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

Me too. I cannot wait.

 

[Zaccheus]

What does science say about polygenism?

Science says nothing about polygenism. “Science” is not an entity. It is an abstract concept. Various scientists say various things about polygenism.
We may say that among scientists, one theory has more support than another. We may say there is more evidence for one theory than for another.

“Science proves thus and so” generally means “scientists who agree with me say thus and so”.

 

[Gorgias]

No, I am actually echoing the interpretations of some pretty heavy weight theologogians.

Psst… in other words, like I said, it’s not “against the Bible”, but “against interpretations.” Thanks for proving my point.

Msgr. Charles Pope, who wrote specifically about polygenism

You’re talking about the Msgr Pope who wrote this?
Msgr Pope:

Catholics may be open to the scientific teachings of evolution

Catholics are free to believe in some sort of evolutionary or gradual process as a secondary cause of biodiversity.

Catholics can come to accept a kind of theistic evolution wherein God is the primary cause of all secondary causes.

Or, perhaps, in the same blog post, where he identifies that he’s talking about a scientific definition of polygenism?
Msgr Pope:

Polygenism is a theory of human origins positing that the human race descended from a pool of early human couples, indeterminate in number.

Perhaps this does not preclude some eventual theory of polygenism that can be acceptable, but none has yet been offered.

And finally, he asserts:

it is essential that we make proper distinctions and exclusions if we choose to embrace some aspects of the Theory of Evolution. The Catholic approach to this whole matter is carefully balanced. We are not fundamentalist and creationists but neither do we uncritically accept the Theory of Evolution. We must make proper distinctions, exclusions and clarifications in order to accept what I might term a theistic evolution as a tenable theory. Even here, Catholics are free to reject aspects of a theistic evolution on the grounds of science.

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

By this theory, no one can know the mind of another, and therefore, no interpretation of the written word is possible at all. (Hardly a tenable position. )

 

[bobperk]

You mean like the “heliocentric” theory swept away traditional exegesis hundreds of years ago?

That has nothing to do with Adam and Eve, Christ and the Church. So apparently you do admit that Eve from Adam’s side is a myth. Do you believe Christ was actually pierced with a lance, or was St. John just using “figurative” writing to make a connection to Adam and Eve?

 

[Gorgias]

That has nothing to do with Adam and Eve, Christ and the Church.

Ahh, but it has everything to do with your assertion that errors in understanding of the physical universe had been perceived as teachings on faith and morals, in the past. And, of course, the attempt to frame up the first chapter of Genesis as literal science can meet the same fate. Whether or not it had been understood otherwise “for centuries” is no argument against heliocentrism, and so, it cannot be an argument against evolution.

So apparently you do admit that Eve from Adam’s side is a myth.

Allegory, perhaps.

Do you believe Christ was actually pierced with a lance, or was St. John just using “figurative” writing to make a connection to Adam and Eve?

Observing the machinations of fundamentalist iteralism is really entertaining. It knows no bounds, and tolerates no deviation from its despotic iron grip.

If you have a serious question to ask, please do. Otherwise…

 

[rossum]

A word on Adam, Eve and the rib. Science can only look at the available evidence. The available genetic evidence today shows that the population of Homo sapiens has never been as small as two. Had it been that small then contemporary human genetics would show the effects, just as Cheetah genetics show the effects of a very severe bottleneck, down to a single family, about 10,000 years ago. If the signs were there in humans, then science would be able to detect them.

Science cannot detect whether or not at some point a female was cloned from a male to make a pair of almost identical twins. So Eve from Adam’s rib is possible.

$0.02

rossum

 

[bobperk]

Ahh, but it has everything to do with your assertion that errors in understanding of the physical universe had been perceived as teachings on faith and morals, in the past.

The comparison between heliocentrism and our first parents is not equatable. We have the means to observe the patterns of the planets in relation to the sun now. Other doctrines and teachings of the Church are not related to the movement of the earth as they are to the creation of our first parents; teachings such as original sin, the Immaculate Conception, man being made in the image of God, etc. The studies and computer models trying to prove how many “first people” there were are just guesses. And even IF there were a few thousand biologically modern humans at the time of Adam and Eve, God could still have created them miraculously, body and soul, if He so desired. So yes, we have proved that the earth moves around the sun. But we have also proved that virgins do not give birth and that executed people do not rise from the dead, that bread and fish do not multiply themselves, etc. Yet we believe these miracles of the faith.

The current Catechism states, in 766, “The Church is born primarily of Christ’s total self-giving for our salvation, anticipated in the institution of the Eucharist and fulfilled on the cross. ‘The origin and growth of the Church are symbolized by the blood and water which flowed from the open side of the crucified Jesus.’ 'For it was from the side of Christ as he slept the sleep of death upon the cross that there came forth the ‘wondrous sacrament of the whole Church.’ As Eve was formed from the sleeping Adam’s side, so the Church was born from the pierced heart of Christ hanging dead on the cross.”

If you have a serious question to ask, please do

You claim the “machinations of fundamentalist literalism” and seemed offended by this question. I did not mean to question you in an offensive way. But there are equal “machinations” of evolutionary literalism where modernist interpretations of Scripture see our Lord and Savior as a simple teacher and preacher; in their reconstruction of Christianity, early stories of Jesus became legends, which became the Gospel of Mark, which became the other Gospels, then the entire New Testament developed; in other words, our faith is just an “evolutionary” belief system. The notion of something progressing to something more complex or different is brushed broadly across the entire faith. This affects the Church even to this day: many claiming the Church must “evolve” to ordain women priests, accept homosexual marriage, contraception, etc.

In fact, it is evolutionary thinking that “knows no bounds” as it steamrolls over Church teachings and traditions, wanting to change everything in its path to fit the “modern” world.

 

[Gorgias]

The comparison between heliocentrism and our first parents is not equatable. We have the means to observe the patterns of the planets in relation to the sun now.

And, inasmuch as archeology and biology and genetics can glean information about the inhabitants of the earth millions of years ago, science can “observe the patterns” of ancient life now.

Other doctrines and teachings of the Church are not related to the movement of the earth as they are to the creation of our first parents

You’re deceiving yourself, then. Read up a little on the teachings of some Church authorities in the pre-Copernican days. Read up on their protestations to his scientific theories. The only difference here is that literal creationism is your pet project; geocentrism isn’t.

You claim the “machinations of fundamentalist literalism” and seemed offended by this question. I did not mean to question you in an offensive way.

You sure managed to do it, though, didn’t ya? I mean… seriously? Asking a Catholic if Christ was a real person?

 

[buffalo]

Had it been that small then contemporary human genetics would show the effects

The assumption is starting diversity. An Adam and Eve with more diversity solves that issue and fits the evidence quite nicely.

 

[buffalo]

So Eve from Adam’s rib is possible.

Yes!

 

[rossum]

The assumption is starting diversity. An Adam and Eve with more diversity solves that issue and fits the evidence quite nicely.

Then Adam and Eve were not human because they would have had more than two alleles for each chromosome. Humans can only have a maximum of two alleles per chromosome, unless they have some genetic fault, like Down syndrome, when they can have three alleles for chromosome 21 or XXY, XYY for their sex chromosomes.

If Adam and Eve were humans with perfect genomes then they had two perfect alleles for each chromosome. Either that or they belonged to a species with tripled, quadrupled or however many copies of their chromosomes, who would not have been able to interbreed with humans due to genetic incompatibilities. Inability to interbreed is the sign of a different species.

Please do try to stay in the real world here, buffalo.

rossum

 

[edwest211]

Double yes.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

For Catholics, this is an interesting question. By chance, I have been reading about pre-historic man for the last year or so, so I’ll offer my thoughts. I am NOT a professional in this field, just an interested amateur.

Let’s get some things out of the way before we start. If you take the Bible literally, I really have nothing to say to you except “Good luck with that.” If you think that God somehow created Eve from a rib He took from Adam, literally, then stop reading now. Second, as with almost all topics, you can nitpick about definitions forever: what is “human”? etc. Third, I see a lot of people on this thread using the word “proven” and “proof” in a totally non-scientific way. I’m not sure any scientist would use the word “proven” outside of mathematics. There are theories; there is evidence for certain theories that’s more compelling than for other theories. If you want to call that “proof,” fine. But if you are searching for 100% absolutely, positively, can’t possibly be wrong “proof,” you’re not a scientist. Again, stop reading here and save yourself some time.

Fourth–and this deserves a new paragraph–people are talking blithely about “the theory of evolution” as if it is an object created by Darwin in 1859 that hasn’t changed an atom since then. That’s nonsense. Yes, there is a general theory that everyone agrees on. But precisely how it works…that’s debatable and has been debated from the beginning. Scientists disagree, but as with most subjects, after a period of disagreement a consensus appears. But if you ask a question like “Does the theory of evolution favor polygenesis or monogenesis?” that would be like asking “Does quantum theory tell you what color your car is?” I.e., it’s a nonsense question.

If you look at a standard textbook (I use “Human Evolutionary Genetics,” 2nd ed. 2014 written by five British scientists) and you look up “monogenesis” you won’t find an entry. Neither will you find an entry for “polygenesis.” For Catholics, this is an important issue; for genetic scientists, it doesn’t even appear on the radar screen.

As technology is improved, we have better ways to measure the age of various materials. So theories have changed in response to new and/or improved information. “Man” split off from chimpanzees 5-7 million years ago. There have been several species of “man” since then–how many species is a matter of hot debate. Homo Erectus spread throughout the Old World, but died out. Neanderthals appeared long before Homo Sapiens, and yes, we (esp. Europeans) share some DNA–but no one knows if that “sharing” took place 400,000 years ago or 40,000 years ago. Home Sapiens, as a new species, appeared roughly 200,000 years ago in Africa. But the big change was 50-60,000 years ago: all of a sudden new types of tools appeared, and Homo Sapiens started appearing in the Middle East, Asia, Australia, and Europe–Europe last of all.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

part 2…

Then there is the question of “bottlenecks.” Everyone agrees that at certain periods, the number of “humans” shrunk because of fewer sources of food due to climate change. A generally agreed on estimate is 7-15,000 people sometime before 100,000 years ago, and perhaps the same number 50-60,000 years ago. This is something we all have to remember–ancient man was not living in a world with 7+ billion people. Most think that when humans re-colonized Europe c. 10,000 BC after the Ice Age, there were probably 4-10,000 total in Europe. And if you are in a hunting band of 100 people, that means only 100 bands throughout Europe, maximum.

Now you can take your calculator and do a simple calculation. If you assume a generation of 25 years, and you go back 400 years you have 65,536 direct ancestors. 250 years back you have 1,024 direct ancestors. The point is that if you have a species of 7-15,000 individuals, it doesn’t take more than a few hundred years for an individual pair to have thousands of descendants–so many that they become the ancestors of the entire species in a very short time. If you assume a shorter generation–say 20 years–it takes even less time.

Now first, I’m sure (I’m not really, which is why I’m pointing this out) that you all know that “Adam” is simply Hebrew for “Man.” Now something clearly happened 50-60,000 years ago–for millions of years “man” had been making the same kinds of tools and living the same way. At some point 50-60,000 years ago, things changed radically. If you have ever seen pre-historic cave paintings in person (I have been to five different caves) you will get a shiver down your back. Some of these date to 32,000 years ago, not long after Homo Sapiens entered Europe. They are making completely different tools. They are creating objects with designs on them. They looked just like us. They began using language. They buried their dead in certain postures and in certain directions with grave goods.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

part 3…

So. What was the radical change 50-60,000 years ago? Well, if you want to say that “God created man [i.e. Adam]” then fine. Science is not going to argue with you. You could also argue there was a genetic change–some random (if you want to think God purposefully caused it, go ahead, science doesn’t care) mutation occurred. And clearly a mutation happens to an individual, not a group simultaneously. Would “Eve” have to have the same mutation simultaneously? No. Even if you take the Bible literally, Eve comes later. “Eve” could have been a daughter of Adam’s, or even a sister or half-sister (maybe Adam’s father/mother had the mutation first, and passed it down). And if it was dominant, not recessive, the mutation would be passed to the descendants of “Adam”–and if “Adam’s” descendants inter-married with others in the group who didn’t have the mutation, some of their children would have the mutation, and you can see from above that it would not be long before inter-marriage connected everyone in the small group of a few thousand individuals to “Adam” and “Adam” would become a common ancestor of everyone–not “the” ancestor, “an” ancestor–but for religious purposes, that’s just fine.

The theory that it was a single mutation in a single man (monogenesis) is championed by an anthropologist who taught at the U. of Pittsburg, Jeffrey Schwartz, in his book “Sudden Origins,” 1999. Can this be “proven”? Of course not. Is it reasonable? Yes. Does it satisfy Catholic teaching? Yes.

Some people have mentioned “most recent common ancestor,” but there seems to be some confusion. It is exactly what the name says–“the most recent”–not THE ONLY. And “common” ancestor. In other words, in a haplogroup with a certain genetic footprint, they can trace its origins back (roughly) to a certain time period. On my father’s side, it’s 5-10,000 years ago. On my mother’s side it’s 18,000 years ago. But DNA deteriorates quickly, and current technology can’t extract it from the too distant past, unless there is some factor that maintained the DNA intact (frozen mammoths, for example). This has nothing to do with “Adam” or monogenesis.

So does science support monogensis or polygenesis? Either. Both. There are scientists on both sides of the question, but it’s a question that is certainly not a primary question for them.

 

[bobperk]

Asking a Catholic if Christ was a real person?

I didn’t ask if you thought Christ was a real person; I asked if you read St. John’s account of Jesus being pierced in the side was figurative or literal. Was He really pierced with the lance or was St. John just using a metaphor?

 

[bobperk]

Erica, all very good posts. I would just say that Catholics can accept some scientific theories only to a degree before they start getting disconnected from certain teachings.

From your posts I would guess that you have read some of Fr. Spitzer’s work?

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Asking a Catholic if Christ was a real person?

I didn’t ask if you thought Christ was a real person; I asked if you read St. John’s account of Jesus being pierced in the side was figurative or literal. Was He really pierced with the lance or was St. John just using a metaphor?

Again, the foundation of this question requires the person asking to blithely ignore the differences in literary genre between the opening chapters of Genesis and the Gospels. Sorry – this isn’t a serious question (or, if it is, it betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of hermeneutic).

 

[Dovekin]

Catholics can accept some scientific theories only to a degree before they start getting disconnected from certain teachings.

"Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. the humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.”

Th is V2’s Gaudium et Spes as quoted by CCC. The issue was debated heavily in Aquinas’ time, and settled then.

 

[Dovekin]

it betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of hermeneutic

I think it is even deeper. If we accept the basic Catholic faith in Scripture, that it is the divine message in human words, the positions taken here show a monophysite tendency. The divine message overwhelms the human involvement as if in a miracle, rather than the human and divine together wrote the Scriptures. For them the human contribution is negligible.

The particular example they are using here is very peculiar, because they emphasize Eve from Adam, Church from Christ, without touching on the core metaphor of birth. For them it is a miraculous creating that overrides man’s inability to create, instead of Christ taking up human childbirth and sanctifying it.