Because then we’re being true to our identity. But not just to any “god,” but to the true Maker of Heaven and earth, as revealed in Jesus. Read the Sermon on the Mount to get a sense of what that means.
That seems to be contradicted by your later statement:
“People look for differences. Being from the same population won’t stop racism. Sadly even coming from Adam and Eve is not sufficient.”
This makes me curious as to what the “other things” are that you hinted at. Why do you think it is important that we have DNA that came from Adam and Eve?
The simplest description of what I mean about a permanently heritable change might be termed a hyperactivated, functionally overloaded neocortex and amygdala configuration, such that peacefulness easily eludes us.
It’s complicated… : )
@John_Harshman
I would copy the quote if my phone would let me. Why do I think we need to come from a first pair rather than a population?
People think of nations when they think of populations, but the more primitive essential identity for a person, for a long time, has been the family, and who your parents were. We see it in Russian, Spanish, and Scandinavian names. We see it in laws of inheritance, and in certain cultures with a very strong paternal control, even to the point of life or death. Only modern people tend to think in terms of nations at all. And only evolutionary biologists think in terms of populations, generally.
Theological reasons: The lineages in the New Testament are parent to child, not tribe to tribe. The writings of St Paul, and Jesus’s acknowledgement of the first parents ( though his words don’t specify a pair as I recall…I could be wrong.
But I’ll say it again so it doesn’t get missed. I started this project about human origins because I was asked how solid the evidence against a historical Adam was. I said I would go look, but at the time I had no opinion on the matter. What I saw was curious. I saw an estimate of 32 drop to seven and then to four alleles for HLA-DRB1. And I saw evidence of a special design in the same gene. This piqued my curiosity. If you want to read the full story it’s in science and human origins. Quite an old book by scientific standards because the field has moved on substantially. Note that my motivation was not an attempt to prove Adam and Eve but simply to see what the science showed. Having studied the fossils and the population genetics and genomics I now believe it is possible we came from a first pair. Simply possible, not proven, and still subject to falsification.
I have a question for evolutionary biologists. It used to be thought that speciation occurred in small groups so as to rapidly fix a new combination of alleles and cause speciation. Is it true that this idea has been abandoned because of evidence of incomplete lineage sorting?
2 Likes
@T_aquaticus Unity. No one can legitimately say I am superior to you because my DNA is better. Unfortunately, people still do say it. But I think it would be worse if we had multi regional populations as the source of our DNA. In the south and in other parts of the world there is a tradition of naming certain groups as the descendants of Ham who are cursed. Of course this curse took place well after Adam and Eve. But it shows our strong tendency to want to divide and separate. To find someway to be better than others. You may not accept my reasoning but i think it is the basis for insisting on monogenism. Maybe there is also a consideration that we share one flesh with both Adam and Jesus ( which may refer to a common DNA, a common origin.)
I have now answered this several ways. If you don’t accept my answer, that’s fine. But I am done.
1 Like
I don’t see how you can legitimately determine a human being’s worth by the DNA sequence of their genome. Period. At first blush, by suggesting that it would be legitimate to discriminate against people if the Multi-regional Model was correct it sets a dangerous standard, at least in my view.
Nonetheless, thanks for clarifying. I was curious if there were other theological considerations outside of racism/discrimination, but it probably is best to just leave it there.
2 Likes
@John_Harshman
See my other answers concerning racism. Concerning Neanderthals, I know their DNA is found preferentially in Europeans. The point had nothing to do with the specific DNA difference, just the fact of a “racial” difference can be used to support racism. Turn it around if you want. Having Neanderthal DNA makes us smarter. Anyone who doesn’t have Neanderthal DNA is inferior. Horrible!
1 Like
@T_aquaticus
I did not suggest the mult-regional hypothesis should be used for discrimination. Far from it. But some will.
1 Like
Then I guess it is a question of if we should change scientific realities to cater to peoples’ misguided and unjustifiable prejudices.
1 Like
We should certainly be very careful about scientific rhetoric. We can agree on the data, but disagree on rhetoric.
2 Likes
Ah, but that’s what I am examining—what are the scientific realities? What is possible and what is impossible? What is proven and what is assumption?
You are free to disagree, of course.
I guess I view the question of human worth and human value independently of the scientific realities of ancestry and genetics. Saying that we should favor one scientific explanation over another because it takes away from the legitimacy of racist arguments seems to give those racist arguments a legitimacy they don’t deserve, IMHO.
4 Likes
@T_aquaticus
You misunderstand. I was not saying to favor one scientific hypothesis over another to avoid racism. No. The science speaks for itself. But it is not proven whether we came from two or 10,000, single origin or multi regional. When I was talking about monogenism it was in response to a question about the reason for that position in the Catholic Church. That was a religious question not a scientific one. The Catholic teaching of monogenism has no determinative value for the scientific results. It is also not a guide for my research. I do not push my results one way or the other or seek to skew the results. That would be exceedingly bad science.
1 Like
Fair enough. Thanks for your responses.
1 Like
As I mentioned in previous threads, be careful with equating something that a particular Catholic, such as @Agauger profess with something that the Catholic Church actually officially endorses. While her view is still consistent with Catholic teaching, it is not de fide Catholic doctrine.
First, Humani Generis refers to humanity in the theological sense - i.e. endowed with a “human soul”, not humanity as defined by biological sciences. Second, despite coming from the Pope, Humani Generis is an encyclical, and therefore NOT infallible.
I want to make sure it is clear that official Catholic doctrine does not ascribe the DNA to be a carrier of humanity - or for it to be important for the definition of humanity at all.
1 Like
That seems more gibberish than complicated. How is this change inherited? What caused it? How?
Your answers, I’m afraid, explain nothing. When clarity is absent, explanation is absent.
Would you marry a person who had no soul?
Is it really a Catholic Church requirement? Please elaborate as the Catholic Church on numerous occasions doesn’t see a problem with evolution.
1 Like
How about Catholic Molecular Biologist?
1 Like