Evolution And Humanri Generis

[Aloysius]

this is in response to the question posted in the Q&A section, just thought I'd see what types of thoughts were out there on this understanding I have of things as a student of anthropology:

Darwinian gradualism is gradually becoming more and more discredited. The theory of evolution that I support, based solely upon the scientific evidence, is "punctuated equilibrium", which basically states that a species will continue over a long period of time with little to no change and then have instantaneous mutations which form a new species. why? because that's what the fossil record indicates: we have hugely long periods of time in which one species of human ancestry is found in the fossil records and then the sudden appearance of another species, which seems always to begin in one particular area and then spread across the globe displacing the former version out of existence.

Into this evolutionary system, a monogenist account is extremely plausible, if not more than likely. in punctuated equilibrium, we should expect that the evolution of our species in each stage will come from the rapid mutation of the genetic structure in conception of one individual child born to parents of the former species.

in addition to this physiological understanding of human nature's evolution, the threshold for human nature which would be necessarily crossed by any candidate to be the "adam" or the "eve" of the human race is linguistics. as Noam Chomsky notes, language is an irreducible whole which cannot be broken into parts and could not have evolved gradually, but must have come all at once in a complete form (meaning the mind was linguistically structured and that human could immediately structure his understanding of the world in complex grammatical structures, only then needing a common phonetic structure with a fellow human in order to communicate fully linguistically)... this individual whose mutation signified the first of our species (and the question of which of our ancestral species was the first to be linguistic and thus the first to have an immortal soul is up to debate) must have been the first to have a linguistic mind. it is possible that this was Adam, who was lonely amidst the previous generation of his species which did not have the linguistic mind (he would've been the smartest person on earth living among a species entirely different than him); likely someone somewhat closely related to him, either sister or cousin (and incest back then before the human gene pool was so specialized would not have had the exact same biological problems... I know it's a bit icky for us to think about that but in that age it did not have the exact same moral or biological implications) had also ended up with this mutation because of the same type of genetic mix and thus they found each other, both with linguistic minds, and likely in the heat of their falling in love (when the linguistic aspects of our brain, to this day, become most active), their true common language was born.

it is this couple who would have had contact with God and who would have disobeyed Him in some way (though the entire narrative is allegorical, you don't need literal apples and walking snakes, just a simple disobedience of God either explicitly as they dealt with Him or implicitly as he may have simply informed their consciences and they disobeyed Him in their consciences... which then passed down to their children because any linguistic creature is a creature of culture, and faults will pass through a culture... had they not sinned themselves, they would've enculturated their children not to sin, and so on down the line; thus original sin is transmitted.

[CatherineM]

Interesting topic. It makes me want to take the Theological Anthropology class next spring. You are probably right about the incest early on. I love doing genealogy, and have been slightly disturbed by the number of times the same people show up on my family tree. That's in a 1000 years, so just imagine 10,000 years ago.

I do remember watching a Discovery Channel show tracing genomes back on the female side, and they were able to trace all humans to one female, 160,000 years ago in East Africa. They think that we were very isolated and almost wiped out, like the cheetahs.

[Resurrexi]

I think it is important to note that the Church teaches that the devil did tempt Adam and Eve in the guise of a serpent, and that this must be maintained:

"Question III: Whether in particular the literal and historical sense can be called into question, where it is a matter of facts related in the same chapters, which pertain to the foundations of the Christian religion; for example, among others, the creation of all things wrought by God in the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; the oneness of the human race; the original happiness of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the command given to man by God to prove his obedience; the transgression of the divine command through the devil's persuasion under the guise of a serpent; the casting of our first parents out of that first state of innocence; and also the promise of a future restorer?--Reply: In the negative."
(Responses of the Biblical Commission to Some Questions on The Historical Character of the Earlier Chapters of Genesis)

[Dr_Asik]

Thanks for the text. BTW, it's in reply to [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=92603"]this question[/url].

It raises several interesting points : what is the evolutionary "threshold" past which we can say this is really a man; Pope John-Paul II talked of an "ontological leap" that could not be attributed solely to evolution. Is it the immortal soul ? What is it, does it explain anything evolution cannot explain ? What is the original sin, what are its effects, how is it transmitted ? Some of these questions have made me doubt about Catholicism and I will ask them in time.

My first objection to Catholic faith is (well you can click the link and read the whole thing, but I'll summarize here) :
(1) Monogenism is an article of Catholic Faith
(2) Monogenism cannot be defended in the light of evolution
(3) Therefore, Catholic Faith cannot be defended in the light of evolution.

Most people I've talked to wanted to oppose (1), that is, that we should have a much more symbolic understanding of genesis. But when you dig through actual Church doctrine, monogenism is definitely a dogma. So this has left me unsatisfied.

This is a more interesting point of view though. I've heard of punctual equilibrium before, and it's true that there can have been a first man, quite different from his ancestor. There's a nagging detail though: even with punctual equilibrium, it's very unlikely that there would have been a first man [b]and [/b]a first woman [b]at the same time.[/b] They would have had to get the exact same very unlikely mutation, it's just not plausible.

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1829369' date='Apr 8 2009, 09:00 PM']I think it is important to note that the Church teaches that the devil did tempt Adam and Eve in the guise of a serpent, and that this must be maintained:

"Question III: Whether in particular the literal and historical sense can be called into question, where it is a matter of facts related in the same chapters, which pertain to the foundations of the Christian religion; for example, among others, the creation of all things wrought by God in the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; the oneness of the human race; the original happiness of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the command given to man by God to prove his obedience; the transgression of the divine command through the devil's persuasion under the guise of a serpent; the casting of our first parents out of that first state of innocence; and also the promise of a future restorer?--Reply: In the negative."
(Responses of the Biblical Commission to Some Questions on The Historical Character of the Earlier Chapters of Genesis)[/quote]

Interesting. I was aware of all of this except for the line re: a literal serpent.

What was this biblical commission and what was the extent of its authority?

[Resurrexi]

Here is what Pope St. Pius X said about the Biblical Commission in his motu proprio [i]Praestantia Scripturae[/i]:

"After long discussions and most conscientious deliberations, certain excellent decisions have been published by the Pontifical Biblical Commission, very useful for the true advancement of Biblical studies and for directing the same by a definite norm. Yet we notice that there are not lacking those who have not received and do not receive such decisions with the obedience which is proper, even though they are approved by the Pontiff.

Therefore, we see that it must be declared and ordered as We do now declare and expressly order, that all are bound by the duty of conscience to submit to the decisions of the Biblical Pontifical Commission, both those which have thus far been published and those which will hereafter be proclaimed, just as to the decrees of the Sacred Congregations which pertain to doctrine and have been approved by the Pontiff; and that all who impugn such decisions as these by word or in writing cannot avoid the charge of disobedience, or on this account be free of grave sin; and this besides the scandal by which they offend, and the other matters for which they can be responsible before God, especially because of other pronouncements in these matters made rashly and erroneously."

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1829633' date='Apr 9 2009, 12:38 AM']Here is what Pope St. Pius X said about the Biblical Commission in his motu proprio [i]Praestantia Scripturae[/i]:

"After long discussions and most conscientious deliberations, certain excellent decisions have been published by the Pontifical Biblical Commission, very useful for the true advancement of Biblical studies and for directing the same by a definite norm. Yet we notice that there are not lacking those who have not received and do not receive such decisions with the obedience which is proper, even though they are approved by the Pontiff.

Therefore, we see that it must be declared and ordered as We do now declare and expressly order, that all are bound by the duty of conscience to submit to the decisions of the Biblical Pontifical Commission, both those which have thus far been published and those which will hereafter be proclaimed, just as to the decrees of the Sacred Congregations which pertain to doctrine and have been approved by the Pontiff; and that all who impugn such decisions as these by word or in writing cannot avoid the charge of disobedience, or on this account be free of grave sin; and this besides the scandal by which they offend, and the other matters for which they can be responsible before God, especially because of other pronouncements in these matters made rashly and erroneously."[/quote]

lol, Wow!

I bet it felt good to slam dunk that one!

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Dr_Asik' post='1829517' date='Apr 9 2009, 12:09 AM']This is a more interesting point of view though. I've heard of punctual equilibrium before, and it's true that there can have been a first man, quite different from his ancestor. There's a nagging detail though: even with punctual equilibrium, it's very unlikely that there would have been a first man [b]and [/b]a first woman [b]at the same time.[/b] They would have had to get the exact same very unlikely mutation, it's just not plausible.[/quote]
Which brings me to my note about incest, something I certainly wouldn't have brought up if I didn't think it important to the discussion... Adam and Eve could have been brother and sister... and genetically, the reason incest currently makes for birth defects is because the gene pool has become, over the centuries, specialized to the point where two people with the same specialities sort of clash when they mix genetically... back early on in our gene pool, it would have been more generalized for all and there wouldn't have been so much of a clash.

anyway, the reason the incest thing is important, after explaining why it wasn't a problem according to genetics, is because if it were brother/sister or even cousin/cousin, this makes it far more likely that both would've had the same genetic mutation... two people in a family with that type of genetic mutation.

the threshold for humanity is an interesting question, too. I hold that as soon as human beings have language, that is when they are fully human with immortal souls. they must have a linguistic brain (and every human from a baby who cannot yet speak a specific language to a nearly brain dead coma patient has a linguistic brain) because a linguistic brain is the only thing that contemplates meaning, an essential characteristic of an immortal soul.

it may be that the mutation was widespread in a specific area where the gene pool converged to produce that mutation, but that only one man and one woman developed language; ie, if a whole clan of people ended up with something genetically new which made a new place divided in their brain, but only one man and one woman developed that place into a language section (likely by falling in love, as it is during this period when our language centers fire up into overdrive, likely the type of biological thing that first catapulted language into existence entirely) of the brain. In that scenario, God would perhaps have infused the character of their soul with immortality at that moment as they began to contemplate meaning (which would've happened by God's finger too, but perhaps in the biological mechanism which produced the punctuation in our evolutionary equilibrium)..

I'm not sure I like an idea of God infusing a soul at some point during the first parents' life, I rather would expect that only two at that moment had their genetics converge to that same abnormality, an abnormality which necessitated their linguistic mind and immortal soul... which means they'd probably be closely related to each other. but the other idea is a possibility; that there was an entire community of proto-humans who all had the potential to be fully human, but that only two truly crossed the threshold.

all of this type of thought brings out some meaning in much of the text... how God breathed into them (if one wants to see them as having been infused with a soul at some point other than birth); Adam is first naming all the creatures (which would've included his ape-like relatives), contemplating their meaning and such, but having no true companion until God said "it is not good for man to be alone"... and in the embrace of the one he finds the linguistic capacity for contemplating meaning is fully realized as the language centers of both their brains kick into overdrive and there is real human nature.