On Nov 8, 9:35 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> macaddicted wrote: > > From a theological standpoint monogenism is that which traces man's > > origins back to a "historic" Adam and Eve. So everything that moves from > > Adam and Eve, from special creation (from clay or otherwise), to the > > idea that the original pair were the first to respond to grace, can be > > included in monogenism. Polygenism describes the rise of man from > > multiple sources (individuals) that eventually rose to current > > civilizations and is more in line with current evolutionary theory as I > > understand it.
> Still not clear. Does monogenism require that all humans are descended > exclusively from Adam & Eve?
Depends what you mean by "exclusively". It is usually taken to require that all humans must have Adam & Eve as ancestors (this follows from the doctrine of original sin). This leads to the question of where Cain's wife came from. If incest is ruled out, then Cain's wife is non-human but his children are (or at least can be) human. On the other hand if you insist that Cain's wife must be human then you need either incest and a genetic bottleneck, or some sort of intervention by God so that someone who does not have Adam & Eve as an ancestor can still be human (since we know that all things are possible to God, this would be possible).
As far as I can tell, there is no official position here.
> Ray Martinez wrote: > > On Nov 7, 9:51 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote: > >> Again, you don't appear to have any idea about the views of either > >> Dawkins or Gould. Pity. While Gould flirted with macromutation on > >> occasion, in PE the transformation of populations happens gradually in > >> the standard Darwinian way.
> > You could not be anymore wrong (as usual). PE says the rate of > > mutation is highly accelerated. This is not the standard Darwinian > > way.
> PE says nothing of the sort. If you can quote either Gould or Eldredge > to that effect, I would like to see it. What PE says is actually simple: > 1) species spend most of their time in stasis; 2) change happens mostly > during speciation. Note that this is a statement about populations, and > says nothing about the rate of mutation,
False.
That's not what the word "punctuated" means as defined by Gould & Eldredge.
> which happens to individuals. > You are at least as ignorant on this subject as Tony.
> >>> Furthermore even Punc Eq doesn't explain why the fossil record NEVER > >>> captured a single example of a nascent structure in the fossil record. > >> What explains that is that when shown a nascent structure you refuse to > >> agree that it's nascent.
> >>> Finally while this may seem like small potatoes to > >>> "stick-a-fork-in-me-I'm-done" Forrest the whole theory hinges upon it. > >> Wrong as usual. Common descent would be clear even in the absence of a > >> mechanism.
> > False.
> > Without mechanism (causation) the alleged effect is imaginary.
> You're saying that there are no phenomena in nature whose mechanisms are > unknown?
Ray Martinez wrote: > On Nov 8, 6:53 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote: >> Ray Martinez wrote: >>> On Nov 7, 9:51 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote: >>>> Again, you don't appear to have any idea about the views of either >>>> Dawkins or Gould. Pity. While Gould flirted with macromutation on >>>> occasion, in PE the transformation of populations happens >>>> gradually in the standard Darwinian way.
>>> You could not be anymore wrong (as usual). PE says the rate of >>> mutation is highly accelerated. This is not the standard Darwinian >>> way.
>> PE says nothing of the sort. If you can quote either Gould or >> Eldredge to that effect, I would like to see it. What PE says is >> actually simple: 1) species spend most of their time in stasis; 2) >> change happens mostly during speciation. Note that this is a >> statement about populations, and says nothing about the rate of >> mutation,
> False.
No, John is right. You got it wrong again, Ray. How long will it take you to admit your mistake?
> That's not what the word "punctuated" means as defined by Gould & > Eldredge.
What do you think "punctuated" means, Ray?
Here's Gould's own description: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_comes-of-age.html "We realized that a standard biological account. Mayr's peripatric theory or speciation in small populations peripherally isolated from a parental stock, would yield stasis and punctuation when properly scaled into the vastness of geological time--for small populations speciating away from a central mass in tens or hundreds of thousands of years, will translate in almost every geological circumstance as a punctuation on a bedding plane, not gradual change up a hill of sediment, whereas stasis should characterize the long and recoverable history of successful central populations."
Nothing there about more rapid mutations, or the changes being "not the standard Darwinian way".
> >>>>>>> Basically he's saying that the Church says that there were a historic > >>>>>>> Adam and Eve. > >>>>>> Supposing that's true, does the Church also say that the historic A&E > >>>>>> were created de novo, without ancestors, and were the sole ancestors of > >>>>>> all modern humans? > >>>>> I would say that the question has been moved from the "yes" to the > >>>>> "maybe" category in the last hundred years. There is a question as to > >>>>> whether the doctrine of Adam and Eve as the first pair has ever been > >>>>> stated unequivocally. Certainly the idea has been assumed to be true, > >>>>> and has been used as the basis for doctrinal statements. Definitions > >>>>> regarding original sin are an example.
> >>>>> Currently polygenism is outside the scope of belief for practicing > >>>>> Catholics. Special creation does avoid the problem of the > >>>>> "pre-adamites," those who _physically_ preceeded Adam and Eve but were > >>>>> not yet responsive to grace. It really starts to devolve from there.
> >>>>> Given that the only recent doctirnal statement on evolution from the > >>>>> Church effectively disallows patterns of thought tied to polygenism for > >>>>> doctrinal reasons there are some theologians who have tried to walk a > >>>>> middle path allowing for the possibility of a physically similar being > >>>>> to man that pre-dates Adam yet were not "man" because they lacked the > >>>>> ability, for want of a better term, to respond to God's grace. If one > >>>>> allows that what makes man "man" is not his physical form but his > >>>>> ability to respond to God, his ability to be given grace by God and > >>>>> respond to it, then such an idea is possible. > >>>> Could you define polygenism and, presumably, monogenism in this context? > >>> From a theological standpoint monogenism is that which traces man's > >>> origins back to a "historic" Adam and Eve. So everything that moves from > >>> Adam and Eve, from special creation (from clay or otherwise), to the > >>> idea that the original pair were the first to respond to grace, can be > >>> included in monogenism. Polygenism describes the rise of man from > >>> multiple sources (individuals) that eventually rose to current > >>> civilizations and is more in line with current evolutionary theory as I > >>> understand it. > >> Still not clear. Does monogenism require that all humans are descended > >> exclusively from Adam & Eve?
> > Yes, but the manner of how Adam and Eve came to being isn't clear.
> That oddly doesn't matter much. What this doctrine requires is an > extreme (to say the least) genetic bottleneck in the human population > only a few thousand years ago. Not compatible with the data.
Except that I'm not saying it happened a few, or even several thousand years ago. I'm also not saying that special creation was involved. Lastly, the nature of the "spread" of sin does not preclude pre-adamites, though this line of theology is not mainstream.
-- macaddicted Wisdom is radiant and unfading and she is easily discerned by those who love her and is found by those who seek her. Wisdom 6:12 (NRSV)
John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote: > Free Lunch wrote: > > On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 17:35:09 -0800, John Harshman > > <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote in talk.origins:
> >> macaddicted wrote: > >>> John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>> macaddicted wrote: > >>>>> John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
[snip]
> >> Still not clear. Does monogenism require that all humans are descended > >> exclusively from Adam & Eve?
> > The doctrine does.
> So that requires that if there were any humans prior to Adam & Eve, > those other humans contributed no genetic material to modern humans. And > thus, we are not related to chimps, or any other species. True?
Ah, you just hit the soft spot. 100 years ago the Church would have said absolutely no other genetic material was involved. Today we say leave science to the scientists, then go stare at a portrait of Aquinas.
-- macaddicted Wisdom is radiant and unfading and she is easily discerned by those who love her and is found by those who seek her. Wisdom 6:12 (NRSV)
macaddicted wrote: > John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Free Lunch wrote: >>> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 17:35:09 -0800, John Harshman >>> <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote in talk.origins:
>>>> macaddicted wrote: >>>>> John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>> macaddicted wrote: >>>>>>> John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> [snip]
>>>> Still not clear. Does monogenism require that all humans are descended >>>> exclusively from Adam & Eve? >>> The doctrine does.
>> So that requires that if there were any humans prior to Adam & Eve, >> those other humans contributed no genetic material to modern humans. And >> thus, we are not related to chimps, or any other species. True?
> Ah, you just hit the soft spot. 100 years ago the Church would have said > absolutely no other genetic material was involved. Today we say leave > science to the scientists, then go stare at a portrait of Aquinas.
Does it bother anyone that this position is incomprehensible? No, what am I saying? These are the people who brought us the Trinity, transubstantiation, etc.
macaddicted wrote: > John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> macaddicted wrote:
> [snip]
>>>>>>>>> Basically he's saying that the Church says that there were a historic >>>>>>>>> Adam and Eve. >>>>>>>> Supposing that's true, does the Church also say that the historic A&E >>>>>>>> were created de novo, without ancestors, and were the sole ancestors of >>>>>>>> all modern humans? >>>>>>> I would say that the question has been moved from the "yes" to the >>>>>>> "maybe" category in the last hundred years. There is a question as to >>>>>>> whether the doctrine of Adam and Eve as the first pair has ever been >>>>>>> stated unequivocally. Certainly the idea has been assumed to be true, >>>>>>> and has been used as the basis for doctrinal statements. Definitions >>>>>>> regarding original sin are an example.
>>>>>>> Currently polygenism is outside the scope of belief for practicing >>>>>>> Catholics. Special creation does avoid the problem of the >>>>>>> "pre-adamites," those who _physically_ preceeded Adam and Eve but were >>>>>>> not yet responsive to grace. It really starts to devolve from there.
>>>>>>> Given that the only recent doctirnal statement on evolution from the >>>>>>> Church effectively disallows patterns of thought tied to polygenism for >>>>>>> doctrinal reasons there are some theologians who have tried to walk a >>>>>>> middle path allowing for the possibility of a physically similar being >>>>>>> to man that pre-dates Adam yet were not "man" because they lacked the >>>>>>> ability, for want of a better term, to respond to God's grace. If one >>>>>>> allows that what makes man "man" is not his physical form but his >>>>>>> ability to respond to God, his ability to be given grace by God and >>>>>>> respond to it, then such an idea is possible. >>>>>> Could you define polygenism and, presumably, monogenism in this context? >>>>> From a theological standpoint monogenism is that which traces man's >>>>> origins back to a "historic" Adam and Eve. So everything that moves from >>>>> Adam and Eve, from special creation (from clay or otherwise), to the >>>>> idea that the original pair were the first to respond to grace, can be >>>>> included in monogenism. Polygenism describes the rise of man from >>>>> multiple sources (individuals) that eventually rose to current >>>>> civilizations and is more in line with current evolutionary theory as I >>>>> understand it. >>>> Still not clear. Does monogenism require that all humans are descended >>>> exclusively from Adam & Eve? >>> Yes, but the manner of how Adam and Eve came to being isn't clear. >> That oddly doesn't matter much. What this doctrine requires is an >> extreme (to say the least) genetic bottleneck in the human population >> only a few thousand years ago. Not compatible with the data.
> Except that I'm not saying it happened a few, or even several thousand > years ago. I'm also not saying that special creation was involved. > Lastly, the nature of the "spread" of sin does not preclude > pre-adamites, though this line of theology is not mainstream.
Ray Martinez wrote: > On Nov 8, 6:53 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote: >> Ray Martinez wrote: >>> On Nov 7, 9:51 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote: >>>> Again, you don't appear to have any idea about the views of either >>>> Dawkins or Gould. Pity. While Gould flirted with macromutation on >>>> occasion, in PE the transformation of populations happens gradually in >>>> the standard Darwinian way. >>> You could not be anymore wrong (as usual). PE says the rate of >>> mutation is highly accelerated. This is not the standard Darwinian >>> way. >> PE says nothing of the sort. If you can quote either Gould or Eldredge >> to that effect, I would like to see it. What PE says is actually simple: >> 1) species spend most of their time in stasis; 2) change happens mostly >> during speciation. Note that this is a statement about populations, and >> says nothing about the rate of mutation,
> False.
> That's not what the word "punctuated" means as defined by Gould & > Eldredge.
Again, you have no apparent idea what "punctuated" means. It refers to episodic change in morphology, coincident with speciation, and taking at most a few dozen millennia. The mutation rate has nothing to do with that, only the ability of populations to respond to selection.
But feel free to provide a quote that contradicts me.
>> which happens to individuals. >> You are at least as ignorant on this subject as Tony.
>>>>> Furthermore even Punc Eq doesn't explain why the fossil record NEVER >>>>> captured a single example of a nascent structure in the fossil record. >>>> What explains that is that when shown a nascent structure you refuse to >>>> agree that it's nascent. >>>>> Finally while this may seem like small potatoes to >>>>> "stick-a-fork-in-me-I'm-done" Forrest the whole theory hinges upon it. >>>> Wrong as usual. Common descent would be clear even in the absence of a >>>> mechanism. >>> False. >>> Without mechanism (causation) the alleged effect is imaginary. >> You're saying that there are no phenomena in nature whose mechanisms are >> unknown?
William Hughes wrote: > On Nov 8, 9:35 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote: >> macaddicted wrote:
>>> From a theological standpoint monogenism is that which traces man's >>> origins back to a "historic" Adam and Eve. So everything that moves from >>> Adam and Eve, from special creation (from clay or otherwise), to the >>> idea that the original pair were the first to respond to grace, can be >>> included in monogenism. Polygenism describes the rise of man from >>> multiple sources (individuals) that eventually rose to current >>> civilizations and is more in line with current evolutionary theory as I >>> understand it.
>> Still not clear. Does monogenism require that all humans are descended >> exclusively from Adam & Eve?
> It is usually taken > to require that all humans must have Adam & Eve as ancestors > (this follows from the doctrine of original sin). > This leads to the question of where Cain's wife came from. If incest > is ruled out, then Cain's wife is non-human but his children > are (or at least can be) human. On the other hand if you insist that > Cain's wife must be human then you need either incest and a > genetic bottleneck, or some sort of intervention by God so that > someone who does not have Adam & Eve as an ancestor can > still be human (since we know that all things > are possible to God, this would be possible).
> As far as I can tell, there is no official position here.
> macaddicted wrote: > > John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> Free Lunch wrote: > >>> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 17:35:09 -0800, John Harshman > >>> <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote in talk.origins:
> >>>> macaddicted wrote: > >>>>> John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> macaddicted wrote: > >>>>>>> John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > [snip]
> >>>> Still not clear. Does monogenism require that all humans are descended > >>>> exclusively from Adam & Eve? > >>> The doctrine does.
> >> So that requires that if there were any humans prior to Adam & Eve, > >> those other humans contributed no genetic material to modern humans. And > >> thus, we are not related to chimps, or any other species. True?
> > Ah, you just hit the soft spot. 100 years ago the Church would have said > > absolutely no other genetic material was involved. Today we say leave > > science to the scientists, then go stare at a portrait of Aquinas.
> Does it bother anyone that this position is incomprehensible? No, what > am I saying? These are the people who brought us the Trinity, > transubstantiation, etc.
I do not think macaddicted's position is incomprehensible. It is somewhat evasive (but not maliciously so, because there is a range of [IMO] mostly fragile strategies to somehow splice traditional dogma onto current science.)
The (apparently absolute) inability of Rome to revise ill-informed early dogma leaves Catholics with limited resources here, and I personally think macaddicted has done a fair job of hinting at possible options.
As he says, a century ago the Magisterium would have adamantly rejected any kind of genetic relation to other primates. But they were also aware that such a position was increasingly open to empirical criticism -- so [luckily for the Vatican] the various pronouncements from that time do not _dogmatically_ reject genetic relationships. They simply insist on (rather overly specified) restatements of traditional dogma, with some unstated but intended implications with respect to the science. In fact, I suspect a semi-educated unwillingness to stage another Galileo episode, while at the same time being as strongly anti-evolutionary as they could manage in their actual ignorance of what they were talking about.
What macaddicted suggests is that _current_ thinking, even under constraint by the earlier pronouncements, can sneak in the genetic relationships, if only with the (essentially non-empirically testable) reservation that the "actual" Adam and Eve and their (human, _sensu religio_ :-)) offspring may have originated -- with God's aid -- from a pre-existing primate population, which continued to exist.
Frankly, the real problem for the Church is not biology as such, but the moronically ill-conceived dogmatic position that "original sin" is a biological trait passed on by human reproduction. This is simple insanity, in fact. And has nothing to do with gospel, faith, or God.
macaddicted wrote: > John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
<...>
> > So that requires that if there were any humans prior to Adam & Eve, > > those other humans contributed no genetic material to modern humans. And > > thus, we are not related to chimps, or any other species. True?
> Ah, you just hit the soft spot. 100 years ago the Church would have said > absolutely no other genetic material was involved. Today we say leave > science to the scientists, then go stare at a portrait of Aquinas.
John Harshman wrote: > macaddicted wrote: > > John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> Free Lunch wrote: > >>> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 17:35:09 -0800, John Harshman > >>> <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote in talk.origins:
> >>>> macaddicted wrote: > >>>>> John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> macaddicted wrote: > >>>>>>> John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > [snip]
> >>>> Still not clear. Does monogenism require that all humans are descended > >>>> exclusively from Adam & Eve? > >>> The doctrine does.
> >> So that requires that if there were any humans prior to Adam & Eve, > >> those other humans contributed no genetic material to modern humans. And > >> thus, we are not related to chimps, or any other species. True?
> > Ah, you just hit the soft spot. 100 years ago the Church would have said > > absolutely no other genetic material was involved. Today we say leave > > science to the scientists, then go stare at a portrait of Aquinas.
> Does it bother anyone that this position is incomprehensible? No, what > am I saying? These are the people who brought us the Trinity, > transubstantiation, etc.
In a way, I think that's similar to the way science deals with the unknown. There were previous species, now there's us. The exact details aren't fully understood. Think of abiogenesis: before there was no life, now there is -- the exact details aren't fully understood.
Regardless of Ray and Tony's squirming, the fact remains that Catholic schools and universities teach evolution to their students, and have been doing so for a couple of generations. Evolution is compatible with Catholic theology.
John Harshman wrote: > Free Lunch wrote: >> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 17:35:09 -0800, John Harshman >> <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote in talk.origins:
>>> macaddicted wrote: >>>> John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>> macaddicted wrote: >>>>>> John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> macaddicted wrote: >>>>>>>> John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> T Pagano wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 00:39:11 -0800 (PST), >>>>>>>>>> "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com" >>>>>>>>>> <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 11:10 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:54:43 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>>>>>>>>>>>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Not too long ago Richard Forrest said something to the >>>>>>>>>>>>> effect that >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ernst Mayr's version of evolution is not really true, >>>>>>>>>>>>> correct or >>>>>>>>>>>>> accurate. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Based on the standard seen above what is to stop anyone >>>>>>>>>>>>> from saying >>>>>>>>>>>>> the same about Dawkins, Gould, Fisher, Harshman or even >>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard >>>>>>>>>>>>> Forrest? >>>>>>>>>>>>> Is ToE open to wide interpretation? How do you know which >>>>>>>>>>>>> version is >>>>>>>>>>>>> correct? >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ray >>>>>>>>>>>> The "versions" are too fuzy to know how far from the truth >>>>>>>>>>>> they are. >>>>>>>>>>> Actually, the "versions" are rather close. The issues in >>>>>>>>>>> dispute are >>>>>>>>>>> the relative contributions of various factors to the >>>>>>>>>>> mechanism of >>>>>>>>>>> evolution.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Varying "positions and interpretations" is simply a kind way >>>>>>>>>>>> of saying >>>>>>>>>>>> that there is no general agreement among atheists >>>>>>>>>>> FALSEHOOD #1 >>>>>>>>>>> ..and once again you are dishonestly conflating science with >>>>>>>>>>> atheism.
>>>>>>>>>>> Tell us, is the Pope an atheist or is he a liar? >>>>>>>>>> Notice that the intellectually bankrupt Forrest doesn't >>>>>>>>>> produce any >>>>>>>>>> quotes from ANY Pope that purely naturalistic evolutionism is >>>>>>>>>> true or >>>>>>>>>> should be believed by Catholics. Care to try? >>>>>>>>> I see that you have introduced some weasel words here. Are you >>>>>>>>> now no >>>>>>>>> longer opposed to evolution, only "purely naturalistic" >>>>>>>>> evolution? Are >>>>>>>>> you in fact now in agreement that theistic evolution is >>>>>>>>> acceptable?
>>>>>>>>>> Furthermore the Pope may not remove, modify or ignore the >>>>>>>>>> Church's >>>>>>>>>> denial of polygenesis (to site one example) which contradicts >>>>>>>>>> evolutionism. Polygenesis is itself enought to deny darwinism. >>>>>>>>> You will have to explain this. >>>>>>>> He is refering to his "Princess Bride" ("I do not think it means >>>>>>>> what >>>>>>>> you think it means") interpretation of a 1909 document from the >>>>>>>> Pontifical Biblical Commission, and the 1950 encyclical "Humani >>>>>>>> Generis" >>>>>>>> among other things. >>>>>>>> Basically he's saying that the Church says that there were a >>>>>>>> historic >>>>>>>> Adam and Eve. >>>>>>> Supposing that's true, does the Church also say that the historic >>>>>>> A&E >>>>>>> were created de novo, without ancestors, and were the sole >>>>>>> ancestors of >>>>>>> all modern humans? >>>>>> I would say that the question has been moved from the "yes" to the >>>>>> "maybe" category in the last hundred years. There is a question as to >>>>>> whether the doctrine of Adam and Eve as the first pair has ever been >>>>>> stated unequivocally. Certainly the idea has been assumed to be true, >>>>>> and has been used as the basis for doctrinal statements. Definitions >>>>>> regarding original sin are an example.
>>>>>> Currently polygenism is outside the scope of belief for practicing >>>>>> Catholics. Special creation does avoid the problem of the >>>>>> "pre-adamites," those who _physically_ preceeded Adam and Eve but >>>>>> were >>>>>> not yet responsive to grace. It really starts to devolve from there.
>>>>>> Given that the only recent doctirnal statement on evolution from the >>>>>> Church effectively disallows patterns of thought tied to >>>>>> polygenism for >>>>>> doctrinal reasons there are some theologians who have tried to walk a >>>>>> middle path allowing for the possibility of a physically similar >>>>>> being >>>>>> to man that pre-dates Adam yet were not "man" because they lacked the >>>>>> ability, for want of a better term, to respond to God's grace. If one >>>>>> allows that what makes man "man" is not his physical form but his >>>>>> ability to respond to God, his ability to be given grace by God and >>>>>> respond to it, then such an idea is possible. >>>>> Could you define polygenism and, presumably, monogenism in this >>>>> context? >>>> From a theological standpoint monogenism is that which traces man's >>>> origins back to a "historic" Adam and Eve. So everything that moves >>>> from >>>> Adam and Eve, from special creation (from clay or otherwise), to the >>>> idea that the original pair were the first to respond to grace, can be >>>> included in monogenism. Polygenism describes the rise of man from >>>> multiple sources (individuals) that eventually rose to current >>>> civilizations and is more in line with current evolutionary theory as I >>>> understand it. >>> Still not clear. Does monogenism require that all humans are >>> descended exclusively from Adam & Eve?
>> The doctrine does.
> So that requires that if there were any humans prior to Adam & Eve, > those other humans contributed no genetic material to modern humans. And > thus, we are not related to chimps, or any other species. True?
My catholic friends (including one Jesuit trained) would express it more carefully - they say that whatever makes us human (and they don't mean H. sapiens with that) is something you caught either from Adam and Eve, or from someone who caught it etc... But that is not something genetic, but ensoulement. So "qua humans", we are related only to Adam and Eve, leaving the genetics issue out. Privately, they are worried it think that leads to traducianism,while the official position is creationism (in the technical sense on creation of new souls), but I always felt that creationism works just as well, and is even less dependant on the need to single out biological/genetic relation.
>> Free Lunch wrote: >> > On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 17:35:09 -0800, John Harshman >> > <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote in talk.origins:
>> >> macaddicted wrote: >> >>> John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> >>>> macaddicted wrote: >> >>>>> John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>[snip]
>> >> Still not clear. Does monogenism require that all humans are descended >> >> exclusively from Adam & Eve?
>> > The doctrine does.
>> So that requires that if there were any humans prior to Adam & Eve, >> those other humans contributed no genetic material to modern humans. And >> thus, we are not related to chimps, or any other species. True?
>Ah, you just hit the soft spot. 100 years ago the Church would have said >absolutely no other genetic material was involved. Today we say leave >science to the scientists, then go stare at a portrait of Aquinas.
But 100 years ago, who knew anything about "genetic material"?
Mendel had just been rediscovered, and I don't think that there was any conception of the material nature of whatever-it-is that transmits inherited traits.
Meanwhile, I don't see how anyone could deny that there was some kind of close relationship (even though it might not be one involving generations of parent and child) between the bodies of humans and those of other animals. (Humans being "rational animals".)
I don't know how much the theologians and philosophers of the Catholic church kept up with the major developments of biology that were discovered in the 19th century. (I'm thinking of things like the synthesis of organic chemicals, the process of fertilization of the mammalian egg, ...)
-- ---Tom S. the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to the currant jelly. Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
> > And creationists are predictably ignorant and dishonest, and run away > > when asked to produce a coherent argument against evolution or for > > creation.
> You would say that, given that you and your clueless ilk are on the > opposite side of the ideological debate.
On the other hand, I might say that because it is true. Bearing in mind that you know little about science in general and evolutionary biology in particular, why should anyone treat such an assertion seriously?
The case for evolutionary theory is made in numerous scientific papers and a number of excellent popular books on the subject. Creationists won't address the evidence, and instead turn to the misrepresentation, distortion and outright falsehoods in their creationist sources.
I have been reading creationist sources for over 30 years, and have yet to come across any argument not based on misrepresentation, distortion or outright falsehoods. I have documented the dishonesty of a number of creationist web sites. You can find my analyses here: http://www.plesiosaur.com/creationism/index.php
If you can demonstrate that I am wrong in my conclusion that creationist sources are guilty of systematic dishonesty, please provide a link to an honest creationist source. I've asked this question many times of creationists, but none have provided such a link. I have also asked creationists to provide a link to any "evolutionist" web site they think is dishonest. None has responded to that request either. I can see no other conclusion but that creationists are systematically dishonest, accept that they are systematically dishonest, and don't care that they are systematically dishonest. What other conclusion can you draw from this evidence?
> Your words are empty and you're about as intelligent as a box of hair.
..which is more empty bluster coming from someone who very obviously has no argument to offer.
> >> Why do you bother?
> > Because, as I keep explaining, I post on boards such as this to expose > > the ignorance and dishonesty of creationists. Your contribution is > > gratefully accepted.
> Yet, the only thing that you manage to expose is your unrelenting > stupidity and your ability to parrot stupidities.
I suggest that others are better placed to make such a judgement than you are.
> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 00:39:11 -0800 (PST), > "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
> <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >On Nov 4, 11:10 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote: > >> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:54:43 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
> >> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >Not too long ago Richard Forrest said something to the effect that > >> >Ernst Mayr's version of evolution is not really true, correct or > >> >accurate.
> >> >Based on the standard seen above what is to stop anyone from saying > >> >the same about Dawkins, Gould, Fisher, Harshman or even Richard > >> >Forrest?
> >> >Is ToE open to wide interpretation? How do you know which version is > >> >correct?
> >> >Ray
> >> The "versions" are too fuzy to know how far from the truth they are.
> >Actually, the "versions" are rather close. The issues in dispute are > >the relative contributions of various factors to the mechanism of > >evolution.
> >> Varying "positions and interpretations" is simply a kind way of saying > >> that there is no general agreement among atheists
> >FALSEHOOD #1 > >..and once again you are dishonestly conflating science with atheism.
> I might be mistaken in my conflation
There's no "might" about it.
>but I am hardly dishonest about
> it.
Yes, you are, because you refuse to address the evidence that many scientists, including many evolutionary biologists are not atheists, and that evolutionary theory is accepted by many, if not most Christians including the head of your own church.
> Forrest is desparate and intellectually bankrupt.
I suggest that others are much better placed to make such a judgement than you are.
> Such is the > inevitable result of adherence to atheism.
1) I have given you no reason to think that I am an atheist. If you consider a detestation of dishonesty to be the mark of an atheist, that tells us more about the moral validity of your beliefs than it does of mine.
and 2) Many scientists are atheists, and no honest assessment of their work would consider it to be "intellectually bankrupt".
> The facts are clear and indisputable that the class of people labeled > "atheist" and the class labeled "evolutionist" are almost completely > overlapping.
FALSEHOOD #1 As you label anyone who accepts the findings of science as an "evolutionist", you are including the head of your own church, as well as the over 12,000 Christian clergy who have signed the "Clergy letter" as atheists. Clearly the two classes are not "almost completely overlapping. "
Or do you think that all those Christian clergy are lying for political reasons as you have accused the Pope of doing?
> There are exceptions but not many.
FALSEHOOD #2 ...as the 12,000 Christian clergy who have signed the "Clergy Letter" attests. It's rather strikingly larger than the number of scientists who have signed the Discovery Institute's deeply dishonest "Dissent from Darwinism" statement, isn't it?
> Furthermore my > compatriots and I have made a considerable effort over these many > months at showing that every evolutionist in the forum is either an > outright atheist, a closet atheist, or a practical atheist.
And you have failed utterly to demonstrate anything of the sort.
> So far NO > exceptions.
FALSEHOOD #3 Several posters have stated clearly and categorically that they are not atheists, and you have not given any reason to think that they are not telling the truth.
> The high priest Dawkins
FALSEHOOD #4 Dawkins is not regarded by any evolutionary biologist as a "high priest". Evolutionary biology is not religion.
>has made this unbundantly clear in the forward > to his bible, "The Blind Watchmaker"-----'Darwin made it possible for > one to be an intellectually fullfilled atheist.'
Quite so. That does not mean that one cannot believe in God and accept evolutionary theory. It's a statement about atheism, not about religious belief.
> Will Forrest > publish a peer reviewed work categorizing Dawkins as dishonest for his > conflation?
Firstly, Dawkins expressed his opinion (or rather, he repeated Thomas Huxley's opinion) in a popular book, not a peer-reviewed publication. Secondly, there is no reason to think that he is being dishonest in expressing such an opinion.
> Forrest would never think of criticizing the high priest > of evolutionism.
FALSEHOOD #5 As there is no religion of "evolutionism", there can be no "high priest of evolutionism"
FALSEHOOD #6 If you take the time to read my posts you will find that there are several occasions in which I *have* criticised Dawkins.
> Last and not least atheism and purely naturalistic evolutionism are > completely consistent and inseparable.
FALSEHOOD #7 All science is based on the assumption of naturalism. It's about time you realised that. That does not stop scientists believing in God.
> >Tell us, is the Pope an atheist or is he a liar?
> >> about specific > >> observable, testable mechanisms causing genuinely novel > >> transformational change.
> >There is no universal agreement amongst scientists either. However, > >there are very large area in which there is agreement.
> >> There are no observable, testable > >> mechanisms.
> >FALSEHOOD #2 > >There are, and they have been observed and measured in nature and > >replicated in the laboratory.
> >> The reason for the disagreement among atheists is that the fossil > >> record shows stasis NOT transformation change.
> >FALSEHOOD #3 > >According to the authority you cited in support of this claim, the > >fossil record *does* show such change.
> >> And transformational > >> change has NEVER been observed in the living world.
> >FALSEHOOD #4 > >It has been studied in exhaustive detail and published in numerous > >scientific paper
> >> Lenski's 40,000+ > >> generation breeding of E coli experiment is a testament to the fixity > >> of species not nature's ability to transform them.
> >FALSEHOOD #5 > >..and an assertion which blatantly contradicts the conclusions formed > >by Lenski's experiments.
> >> For example, the Gouldian naturalist camp has argued vigorously for > >> almost 35 years that Darwin's (and now Dawkins's) reductionist > >> gradualism is contradicted by the fossil record.
> >FALSEHOOD #6 > >Not according to Gould, they didn't. > >What do you know about Gould's views on evolution which Gould didn't > >know himself?
> >> Notwithstanding > >> their unbridgeable disagreement
> >FALSEHOOD #7 > >Far from being an "unbridgeable disagreement", the issue of Punctuated > >Equilibrium is one of evolutionary tempo.
> >> neither side can produce an > >> observable, testable mechanism for transformational change.
> >FALSEHOOD #8 > >Actually, science can.
> >> Regards, > >> T Pagano
> >Only 8 falsehoods, Tony. Mind you, it was a short post.
> >Bearing in mind that you have been corrected numerous times on most of > >these falsehoods and have been provided with evidence which shows that > >they are falsehoods, what do you think you gain by such outright lies?
> >Not that I'm complaining. After all, as I keep explaining, I post on > >boards such as this to expose the ignorance and dishonesty of > >creationists. Your contribution is gratefully accepted.
> On Nov 7, 10:18 am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
> <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > On Nov 7, 3:49 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> [SNIP....]
> > > >FALSEHOOD #1 > > > >..and once again you are dishonestly conflating science with atheism.
> > > >Tell us, is the Pope an atheist or is he a liar?
> > > Notice that the intellectually bankrupt Forrest doesn't produce any > > > quotes from ANY Pope that purely naturalistic evolutionism is true or > > > should be believed by Catholics.
> > My word, Tony! Talk about moving the goalposts! > > The Pope accepts the findings of science in respect of biological > > evolution.
> You are ignoring what he said, Richard.
No Ray, I'm not. Tony labels *anyone* who accepts evolutionary theory an atheist. That includes the Pope. He is on record as asserting that the Pope has endorsed evolutionary science for political reasons - i.e. that the Pope is lying when he endorses science.
> The current Pope, as one would expect, has said the universe is an > "intelligent project." This means, as one would expect, that he > accepts Intelligent causation operating in nature.
> If the Pope accepts evolution then it is a counterfeit evolution > because evolution since Darwin rejects Intelligent causation > (Creationism).
Oh, please! You're not convincing anyone with such a phony argument.
> The same is true with Michael Behe: he accepts a counterfeit evolution > based on the fact that he accepts Intelligent causation. If > Intelligence is acting in nature the same is called Creationism-ID. If > Intelligence is not the same is called Darwinism or evolution.
> Basic stuff, Richard.
Pure invention, Ray.
> And when the Pope "endorses" evolution he is attempting to placate > those who would make this into a divisive issue.
So you agree with Tony that the Pope is lying for political purposes.
> The Pope wants to > please both sides and he wants the issue to go away for the sake of > unity and the Gospel.
By lying.
> Darwinists are too stupid to understand that the Pope is giving them > lip service. He has outsmarted you guys and your attempt to put him on > the spot (just like when the Pharisees attempted to put Jesus on the > spot with their "question" about paying taxes to Caesar).
By lying.
> Like all > Popes, as one would expect, Benedict is strict old school Creationist.
So you think that he's lying for political reasons when he endorses evolutionary science.
> If you think otherwise then that's exactly what he wants.
If, as you have made it so patently clear, you think that the Pope is a liar, why should anyone believe anything he says?
> > By *your* standards that makes him an atheist. > > You previously claimed that he made statements in support of > > evolutionary science for political reasons - i.e. he lied.
> > > Care to try?
> > > Furthermore the Pope may not remove, modify or ignore the Church's > > > denial of polygenesis (to site one example) which contradicts > > > evolutionism. Polygenesis is itself enought to deny darwinism.
> > Not according to the Pope. > > What do you know about Catholic Theology that he doesn't?
> > > Lastly whether the Pope is atheist or not is irrelevent. Catholic > > > Doctrine does not originate with the Pope, the Pope has no authority > > > to change doctrine, and he is not the guarrantor of its > > > verisimilitude.
> William Hughes wrote: > > On Nov 8, 9:35 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote: > >> macaddicted wrote:
> >>> From a theological standpoint monogenism is that which traces man's > >>> origins back to a "historic" Adam and Eve. So everything that moves from > >>> Adam and Eve, from special creation (from clay or otherwise), to the > >>> idea that the original pair were the first to respond to grace, can be > >>> included in monogenism. Polygenism describes the rise of man from > >>> multiple sources (individuals) that eventually rose to current > >>> civilizations and is more in line with current evolutionary theory as I > >>> understand it.
> >> Still not clear. Does monogenism require that all humans are descended > >> exclusively from Adam & Eve?
> > Depends what you mean by "exclusively".
> I was unaware there was more than one meaning.
Depends what you mean by "was" :)
In this case I would have picked for "exclusively" the meaning you appear to have intended: i.e. any ancestor of a human must be an ancestor or decendant of Adam or Eve.
However, an alternate reading (e.g. only individuals who have Adam and Eve as an ancestor can be human) would seem at least possible.
I hope I was clear. Monogenism does not strictly imply "exclusively". However, this would seem to be the way it is often interpreted (but I don't know what the official position is, or even if one exists).
William Hughes wrote: > On Nov 9, 1:00 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote: >> William Hughes wrote: >>> On Nov 8, 9:35 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote: >>>> macaddicted wrote: >>>>> From a theological standpoint monogenism is that which traces man's >>>>> origins back to a "historic" Adam and Eve. So everything that moves from >>>>> Adam and Eve, from special creation (from clay or otherwise), to the >>>>> idea that the original pair were the first to respond to grace, can be >>>>> included in monogenism. Polygenism describes the rise of man from >>>>> multiple sources (individuals) that eventually rose to current >>>>> civilizations and is more in line with current evolutionary theory as I >>>>> understand it. >>>> Still not clear. Does monogenism require that all humans are descended >>>> exclusively from Adam & Eve? >>> Depends what you mean by "exclusively". >> I was unaware there was more than one meaning.
> Depends what you mean by "was" :)
> In this case I would have picked for "exclusively" > the meaning you appear to have intended: i.e. any ancestor > of a human must be an ancestor or decendant of > Adam or Eve.
That's roughly what I meant, though I think your statement is loose enough to allow for possibilities I didn't mean. What I meant was that all modern humans must get all their genomes by linear descent from Adam & Eve. There could conceivably have been ancestors of that pair, but if so their lineage must pass to us through that pair.
> However, an alternate reading (e.g. only individuals who > have Adam and Eve as an ancestor can be human) > would seem at least possible.
No, that's not what "exclusively" means. The word was intended to eliminate exactly that possibility.
> I hope I was clear. Monogenism does not > strictly imply "exclusively". However, this > would seem to be the way it is often > interpreted (but I don't know what the official > position is, or even if one exists).
So, to be clear. Monogenism requires that we all be descended from Adam & Eve in the same way that we are all descended from mitochondrial Eve, i.e. that some portion of each of us (e.g., the soul) has that ancestry, but not necessesarily all. And thus we can avoid conflict with the data, if we want to. But conflict is more often avoided by affirming exclusive ancestry while ignoring any problems that presents. Correct?
>> "And creationists are predictably ignorant and dishonest, and run away >> when asked to produce a coherent argument against evolution or for >> creation."
>> Creationists only have silly arguments against evolution. Don't dare >> ask them to explain ANYTHING about creation beyond "it happened" or >> they will run away.
> I haven't asked in quite a while, but one of my favorite questions > is to ask them to provide evidence for the theory of creationism > without talking about god, the bible, or evolution. > The best discussion I had was a c'ist trying to figure out why > the bible is not considered evidence.
I can't even get them to tell me whether or not all the species were created at once and 99% have since gone extinct, or do they still occasionally pop into existence to replace the ones that went extinct. None have had the courage of their beliefs to say one way or the other. This behavior seems to come from their attitude that their's is the default position and evolution needs proof!
>>> "And creationists are predictably ignorant and dishonest, and run away >>> when asked to produce a coherent argument against evolution or for >>> creation."
>>> Creationists only have silly arguments against evolution. Don't dare >>> ask them to explain ANYTHING about creation beyond "it happened" or >>> they will run away.
>> I haven't asked in quite a while, but one of my favorite questions >> is to ask them to provide evidence for the theory of creationism >> without talking about god, the bible, or evolution. >> The best discussion I had was a c'ist trying to figure out why >> the bible is not considered evidence.
>I can't even get them to tell me whether or not all the species were created >at once and 99% have since gone extinct, or do they still occasionally pop >into existence to replace the ones that went extinct. None have had the >courage of their beliefs to say one way or the other. This behavior seems >to come from their attitude that their's is the default position and >evolution needs proof!
In my experience, it's difficult to get a creationist to give any description of what happens when a creation event takes place.
What is it like when a species or a "kind" is created? What is there before the event?
Herbert Spencer wrote a little essay about this question. The creationists should be prepared by now to give an answer:
"The Deveopment Hypothesis" (original from 1852, online is a slightly revised version from 1891)
-- ---Tom S. the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to the currant jelly. Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
On Nov 9, 10:24 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> So, to be clear. Monogenism requires that we all be descended from Adam > & Eve in the same way that we are all descended from mitochondrial Eve, > i.e. that some portion of each of us (e.g., the soul) has that ancestry, > but not necessesarily all. And thus we can avoid conflict with the data, > if we want to. But conflict is more often avoided by affirming exclusive > ancestry while ignoring any problems that presents. Correct?
Nice summary. This is my understanding.
However.
Go not to the theologians for counsel, for they will say both no and yes.
While it is widely believed that polygenism is incompatable with the doctrine of original sin, this incompatibility is not doctrine, and there have been attempts to make the two conform.
>>>> "And creationists are predictably ignorant and dishonest, and run away >>>> when asked to produce a coherent argument against evolution or for >>>> creation."
>>>> Creationists only have silly arguments against evolution. Don't dare >>>> ask them to explain ANYTHING about creation beyond "it happened" or >>>> they will run away.
>>> I haven't asked in quite a while, but one of my favorite questions >>> is to ask them to provide evidence for the theory of creationism >>> without talking about god, the bible, or evolution. >>> The best discussion I had was a c'ist trying to figure out why >>> the bible is not considered evidence.
>>I can't even get them to tell me whether or not all the species were >>created >>at once and 99% have since gone extinct, or do they still occasionally pop >>into existence to replace the ones that went extinct. None have had the >>courage of their beliefs to say one way or the other. This behavior seems >>to come from their attitude that their's is the default position and >>evolution needs proof!
> In my experience, it's difficult to get a creationist to give any > description of what happens when a creation event takes place.
> What is it like when a species or a "kind" is created? What is there > before the event?
> Herbert Spencer wrote a little essay about this question. The > creationists should be prepared by now to give an answer:
> "The Deveopment Hypothesis" (original from 1852, online is a > slightly revised version from 1891)
"Those who cavalierly reject the Theory of Evolution as not being adequately supported by facts, seem to forget that their own theory is supported by no facts at all. Like the majority of men who are born to a given belief, they demand the most rigorous proof of any adverse belief, but assume that their own needs none."
A wonderful cite, 118 years old too, and just as relevant today!
|
