Why Desire Adam as Genetic Ancestor?

[Patrick]

@Agauger

And I can’t see why you can’t see it. It is a protection against racism, among other things. Or it should be.

Here we agree again. I too am worried about the racial connotations of GA.

[John_Harshman]

@Agauger

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?

No. It was never thought that speciation occurred in small groups. That was Ernst Mayr’s idiosyncratic contribution, which was never popular among evolutionary biologists as a group, though it gained considerable currency among paleontologists because Gould and Eldredge promoted it. The standard view has for very long been plain old allopatric speciation, with separated populations of any relative sizes. Might I recommend the book Speciation by Jerry Coyne and H. Allen Orr?

@Agauger

I saw an estimate of 32 drop to seven and then to four alleles for HLA-DRB1.

Could you cite something for this count of 4?

[Patrick]

@Agauger

People look for differences. Being from the same population won’t stop racism. Sadly even coming from Adam and Eve is not sufficient. In the 1800s there was this idea that Africans suffered under the curse of Ham in the Bible, that they were his descendants, and were therefore less competent in many areas. Sometimes even thought to be less humian. Obviously a false narrative and a very distructive one. If it can be shown that we differ in our DNA and it can be used to justify differences, there will be persecution, racism, or worse by a fraction of the population. If it fits their biases. If for example Africans had a higher amount of Neanderthal DNA then that would be used against them. How do I know? I have heard such thinking from a current researcher.

David Reich in his book Who we are and Where did we come from, address the racial aspects of DNA sequencing. If people misinterpret the results, it could become a problem.

[Patrick]

@Patrick

If for example Africans had a higher amount of Neanderthal DNA then that would be used against them.

Actually Africans have a lower amount of Neanderthal DNA than Europeans. But if it can be shown that Europeans got something beneficial from Neanderthals that African didn’t, that could fuel racism.

[Agauger (Ann Gauger)]

@PdotdQ

Yes, I do not believe DNA alone determines humanity, and that Catholic theology does not usually talk in those terms.
Yes, I am expressing my understanding of the science, and separately, the theology. These are my views, and I do not represent the Church.
However, my views are within the bounds of Catholic teaching on evolution, which is quite vague.

[Patrick]

@Agauger

Yes, I do not believe DNA alone determines humanity, and that Catholic theology does not usually talk in those terms.

Here is another area that @Agauger and I agree. DNA alone didn’t determine humanity. Culture, technology, innovation, human reasoning and empathy is what makes us human.

[Patrick]

@John_Harshman

Would you marry a person who had no soul?

My wife did.

[PdotdQ]

@John_Harshman

Would you marry a person who had no soul?

This is a good question, there are several options that I can think of, but I am sure there are other, more theologically appropriate answers:

1. The person do not have a “human soul”, for a suitable theological definition of humanity, does not mean that they have no soul.
2. The sacrament of marriage could be a channel upon which a person is ensouled.
3. Inasmuch as philosophical-zombies are identical in all physical aspects to humans, it could be argued that it is okay to marry a person without a soul.

But in the end, my main point is that Humani Generis do not talk about humanity in the biological sense, and especially not in some DNA sense.

[PdotdQ]

@Agauger

Yes, I do not believe DNA alone determines humanity, and that Catholic theology does not usually talk in those terms.
Yes, I am expressing my understanding of the science, and separately, the theology. These are my views, and I do not represent the Church.
However, my views are within the bounds of Catholic teaching on evolution, which is quite vague.

I understand that you hold these views, as I mentioned:

@PdotdQ

While her view is still consistent with Catholic teaching, it is not de fide Catholic doctrine.

I am sorry for being pedantic, but it is important to emphasize it for the benefits of people who are not familiar with what being a Catholic means. As it stands, at least @John_Harshman confuses the fact that what you are professing is not Catholic doctrine, but your own views that are still compatible with Catholic doctrine:

@John_Harshman

Gauger’s answer seems obvious enough: because it’s Catholic doctrine.

[Agauger (Ann Gauger)]

@PdotdQ
There are no de fide Catholic views on evolution.

[PdotdQ]

@Agauger

There are no de fide Catholic views on evolution.

I know, which is why I kept saying that your views are not the de fide Catholic position. I did not say that it is against a de fide position.

[Agauger (Ann Gauger)]

I am just being pedantic. Go back and read exactly what you wrote. It could be read as saying, “Her view is not the de fide view. The de fide view is different.” Implying that there is a de fide view.

[PdotdQ]

@Agauger

It could be read as saying, “Her view is not the de fide view. The de fide view is different.” Implying that there is a de fide view.

I hope this is clear from my statements such as this:

@PdotdQ

While her view is still consistent with Catholic teaching, it is not de fide Catholic doctrine.

and this:

@PdotdQ

As it stands, at least @John_Harshman confuses the fact that what you are professing is not Catholic doctrine, but your own views that are still compatible with Catholic doctrine

[Agauger (Ann Gauger)]

Tell me what is Catholic doctrine on evolution?

[PdotdQ]

@Agauger

Tell me what is Catholic doctrine on evolution?

I don’t know why you are asking this, as I already said,

@PdotdQ

There are no de fide Catholic views on evolution.

I know, which is why I kept saying that your views are not the de fide Catholic position. I did not say that it is against a de fide position.

[John_Harshman]

@PdotdQ

• The person do not have a “human soul”, for a suitable theological definition of humanity, does not mean that they have no soul.
• The sacrament of marriage could be a channel upon which a person is ensouled.
• Inasmuch as philosophical-zombies are identical in all physical aspects to humans, it could be argued that it is okay to marry a person without a soul.

I’m glad there are other more theologically appropriate answers, since those have serious problems. The first is just weaseling. The second is farfetched pleading. And the third is creepy, or perhaps it implies that a soul makes no actual difference to a person.

@PdotdQ

But in the end, my main point is that Humani Generis do not talk about humanity in the biological sense, and especially not in some DNA sense.

Maybe, but what does that mean? What’s a “true human” in the sense Humani Generis means it? And what does “descend” mean in that sense?

[John_Harshman]

@Agauger

There are no de fide Catholic views on evolution.

So Humani Generis is not doctrine, and the Church has no actual position on whether Adam and Eve were real people?

[PdotdQ]

@John_Harshman

The first is just weaseling. The second is farfetched pleading. And the third is creepy, or perhaps it implies that a soul makes no actual difference to a person.

I mean it’s theology, it is going to sound weaseling and farfetched pleading, but whether something sounds weaseling or farfetched to you does not constitute a rigorous rejection of these possibilities.

@John_Harshman

Maybe, but what does that mean? What’s a “true human” in the sense Humani Generis means it? And what does “descend” mean in that sense?

I don’t know, I have not read Humani Generis in its entirety, but I do know that it does not refer to humanity based on DNA.

[John_Harshman]

@PdotdQ

I mean it’s theology, it is going to sound weaseling and farfetched pleading, but whether something sounds weaseling or farfetched to you does not constitute a rigorous rejection of these possibilities.

John_Harshman:

Is it going to sound like that because it is that? Dividing the word “soul” into two pieces, one of them invented on the spot and apparently with no discernible difference between them, is just not a legitimate theological claim. Is theology just a matter of making up anything you find convenient? Inventing a new means of ensoulment is another example of you just making stuff up. And the third does get you into theological and philosophical trouble. Either a person without a soul acts like a robot, which requires feeling humans to marry robots, or a person without a soul has no detectable difference from a person with one, so what’s the point of a soul?

@PdotdQ

I have not read Humani Generis in its entirety, but I do know that it does not refer to humanity based on DNA.

If you don’t know, how do you know that?

[Agauger (Ann Gauger)]

@John_Harshman

De fide means that which is of the faith, meaning that which must be accepted to be called Catholic. @PdotdQ has a strict requirement here on several topics, but he should know that there is no de fide pronouncement on evolution. Several popes have said it is ok to investigate evolution as long as the proper understanding of the human person is maintained and Church teaching is taken into consideration and not overthrown. ( Obviously, only Catholics or friendly non-Catholic Christians will do or have done this.)
Monogenism was declared to be one of those things not to be overthrown and it was in an encyclical, which has strong authority attached to it, but not as strong as a council ( rare) or ex cathedra statement by the pope (there have only been two). I take monogenism very seriously. But there are theologians who question it, mainly because of evolution.