Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: (4 of 4) Monogenism Vs. Polygenism

Expand Messages
  • hecd2
    Dear Brian et al, Thank you very much for this post - I must say that I agree with almost everything that you write here. I agree that it would be good if
    Message 1 of 16 , Aug 2, 2004
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Brian et al,

      Thank you very much for this post - I must say that I agree with
      almost everything that you write here. I agree that it would be good
      if organised religions were a little less dogmatic and a little more
      accepting of new ideas and new findings. Of course the problem with
      religious dogma that creeps into pronouncing on natural phenomena is
      that it is likely to be proven wrong to the embarassment of the
      church. Geocentrism and even the theory of evolution itself fall into
      this category.

      There is just one thing I want to comment on and it is the idea of
      Teilhard as reported by you thus:

      'Did that "crowd" have its beginnings monogenetically or
      polygenetically? In Teilhard's opinion, as he expresses it in "The
      Phenomenon of Man", science, on its own, cannot see back to those
      beginnings to pronounce assuredly on the matter, one way or the
      other.'

      In other words, it is Teilhard's view, that, although he tends to
      support the polygenic view, science cannot authoritatively decide
      whether humans had polygenic or monogenic origins. The reason for
      this is that Teilhard was speaking with the language of science of
      the 1950s - the language of palaeontology and classical evolutionary
      theory. The thing that was missing then and that allows us to state
      with certainty that a monogenic origin for the human species is not
      an option is molecular biology.

      The Phenomenon of Man predates the discovery of the structure of DNA
      by several years and predates the now mature science of molecular
      biology by more than a decade. Molecular biology, with several lines
      of evidence, tells us that monogeny is not an option. In fact the
      combination of molecular biology and population genetics tells us
      that since the divergence of the human and chimpanzee lineages six
      million years ago the human population has not fallen below 10,000
      individuals.

      I could post many references to several independent lines of
      evidence, but most of them require either expertise in molecular
      biology or explanation. So I'll stick with one line of evidence
      which can stand as illustration of the others:

      At its absolute simplest, if we consider a highly polymorphic locus
      like DRB-1 (that is, a place on the human genome that has many
      different forms between different people) in the Human Leucocyte
      Antigen complex (a part of the human genome that is very variable
      between people) we find 58 human alleles (in other words, at this one
      place in the human genome, by sampling the genomes of different
      people we have found 58 different forms - there are bound to be many
      more as our sample is limited). By carrying out analyses of the pan-
      specific alleles (ie the variations at that point in the genome that
      we share with chimpanzees and other great apes) we can determine the
      likely coalescence dates of allelesn (different alleles diverge from
      comon ancestors -the coalescnce date is the point in time in the past
      where they diverged), by derivation of a phylogenetic tree from pan-
      specific divergence of individual alleles. That indicates that all 58
      alleles persisted through the last 500,000 years of human evolution.
      The 58 alleles coalesce to 44 lineages by 1.7 Myr BP and to 21
      lineages by 6 Myr BP (the approximate date of divergence of human and
      chimpanzee ancestors). Since anatomically modern humans emerge at
      125,000 years BP and culturally modern humans at 50,000 years BP, and
      the human lineage polymorphism at this locus is 58 alleles during
      this period, this puts a mathematically logical lower limit on the
      minimum human population size during culturally modern human
      existence of 29 individuals which in itself destroys the concept of
      monogeny.

      Formal population genetics demands a much larger population than 29
      individuals for the maintenance of 58 alleles in a situation where
      neutral drift and balanced evolution (where heterozygosity has more
      fitness than any homozygosity) is occurring, and the conclusion from
      these quantitative evolutionary analyses is that the minimum human
      population bottleneck was around 10,000 individuals.

      If we take this evidence and add in the many other lines available
      from mitochondrial DNA, Y-chromosome DNA, beta-globin, apolipoprotein
      C II, analyses of loci other than DRB1 in the major
      histocompatibility complex, the conclusion that humans have a
      polygenic origin is inescapable. (I am conscious that I have used a
      lot of jargon in this post but it's late and I'm tired - if anyone
      wants me to try to explain what I have said more clearly, they have
      only to ask and I promse to oblige.)

      So how do strict catholics react to this scientific evidence for the
      polygenic origins of modern humans?

      The really strict ones say that the science is mistaken because it
      conflicts with the dogma and they would rather go with the dogma.
      That way lies embarassment. More enlightened ones have an approach
      that accepts the biological polygenism of humans: they suggest that
      in some generation two of the human ancestors were given souls,
      committed original sin and passed their humanity to their
      descendants. This is a logically acceptable conclusion but has rather
      difficult philosophical and moral implications - this hypothesis
      demands that people with and without souls lived together as
      partners. Furthermore, it logically admits the possibility that
      people with and without souls exist today - a deeply disturbing
      hypothesis.

      My view is that the most elegant theological solution to this
      conundrum is that we can hold that the fall is something experienced
      by a human population emerging into a full understanding of the
      consequences of their action - this in no way undermines the doctrine
      (and the observation!) of mankind's fallen nature. If the Church is
      happy to accept now that the six day creation is a symbolic
      description of reality, I can't see why adopting the same approach
      with regard to literal Adam and Eve and Original Sin is so difficult.

      By the way science confirms that modern humans are a monophyletic
      group (ie arising from a single *group* of closely related ancestors -
      in fact modern humans from all over the world are more closely
      related that the majority of mammmalian species.) This finding of
      molecular biology triumphantly confirms Teilhard's opinions about the
      monophyletic origins of modern humans - I can expand on this too if
      anyone is interested.

      Alec
      http://www.evolutionpages.com





      --- In teilhard@yahoogroups.com, BCowan6974@a... wrote:
      >
      > This is part 4 of 4.
      >
      > If I have understood him aright, the Jesuit paleontologist, around
      > the middle of the last century, was saying that he, and others
      > involved in the evolutionary sciences, were entertaining serious
      > doubts about the ability of human beings to think competently
      > about moral issues until after the emergence of Homo sapiens.
      > Such doubts do not appear to me to be out of line or far fetched.
      > Even after the emergence of Homo sapiens right up into the era
      > of recorded history, we find a good deal of muddled (i. e. not very
      > competent) ethical thinking. For example, some ancient peoples
      > thought that the offering of human sacrifices to their gods was
      > pious and worshipful, and Christianity was more than 1,800 years
      > old before most Christians began to question the ethical status
      > of slavery.
      >
      > Back in the 1930s and 1940s the emergence of Homo sapiens
      > was thought to have occurred 20,000 or 30,000 years ago.
      > Now, to be sure, against the backdrop of evolutionary time, a date
      > of 20,000 or 30,000 in the past can be seen as a date which,
      > figuratively speaking, occurred only yesterday. In a paper
      > completed in 1937, Teilhard proposes that it was "only yesterday"
      > that human thinking, in any significant fashion, turned away
      > from the practical concerns of day-to-day survival and began to
      > concentrate, in a more pronounced fashion, on theoretical issues,
      > including, I would suspect, issues associated with moral theory.
      > My best guess is that when he speaks of "only yesterday" he
      > means "only after the appearance of Homo sapiens on the world
      > scene". In any event, within the pages of the aforementioned
      > 1937 essay, he writes:
      >
      > 'To discover and know has always been
      > a deep tendency of our nature. Can we
      > not recognize it already in cave man?
      > But it is only yesterday that this
      > essential need to know has become
      > explicit and changed into a vital
      > autonomous function, taking
      > precedence in our lives over our
      > preoccupations with food and
      > drink.' (17)
      >
      > What I suspect the Jesuit thinker is suggesting here is that at
      > least up to the appearance of Homo sapiens (and, indeed,
      > probably well into the Homo sapiens era) thought was
      > almost entirely preoccupied with concerns related to food,
      > drink, shelter, safety and the like. There would, therefore,
      > have been little place for theoretical thinking such as that
      > involved in a serious pondering of moral issues.
      >
      > Now, as Teilhard saw it, what the traditional theologians of
      > his day were implying was that thinking life, humankind, by
      > way of the first human couple, Adam and Eve, appeared on
      > our globe at the Homo sapiens stage of human evolutionary
      > development. These theologians were proposing to the
      > faithful that that the very first human beings were individuals
      > whose mental abilities exceeded, by far, the intellectual
      > capacities possessed by, say, Java man or Peking man.
      >
      > Traditional Christian theology, from Teilhard's perspective,
      > presents us with a first human couple who are advanced
      > enough in their ability to think that they are capable, without
      > difficulty, of distinguishing right from wrong. And on the
      > basis of this capability, the couple in question possessed
      > the intellectual wherewithal to proceed, in an informed and
      > consenting fashion, to commit the world's first moral trespass
      > which is known as the Original Sin. Most of the Christian
      > theologians of the mid twentieth century, in the view of the
      > Jesuit thinker, were, at least implicitly, making the claim
      > that Adam, the first man, was an individual whose
      > intellectual acumen was such as to situate him at the
      > Homo sapiens level of evolutionary development. Why? Well,
      > only thus would Adam "be capable of bearing the responsibility
      > for original sin.' (18) What Teilhard has to say about Adam here,
      > can, I believe, also be legitimately extended to include Eve.
      >
      > So, in the opinion of the Auvergnian Jesuit, what the theologians
      > who champion monogenism (as a method of safeguarding the
      > biological transmission of the taint of the Original Sin) are, in
      > effect doing, whether they realize it or not, is temporally
      > situating the first humans at the commencement of the Homo
      > sapiens era. Around the middle of the last century, the
      > implication of the theological position under discussion was
      > that humanity was no more than 20,000 or 30,000 years old.
      >
      > Not a few scientists of the day (with Teilhard being among them)
      > were, of course, finding such an implication questionable
      > because it was one which refused to attribute any sort of
      > humanity to all those species, in the genus Homo, which
      > preceded Homo sapiens, all the way from whatever hominian
      > species may have antedated Java man right up to the
      > Neanderthaloids. Many scientists, including Père Teilhard
      > were not happy over this refusal of at least some measure of
      > humanity to those hominians who lived before the dawn of
      > Homo sapiens. Science and religion seemed to be heading
      > towards an impasse with one another, sixty or seventy years
      > ago, over this implication of monogenism which seemed to
      > deny any sort of humanity to pre Homo sapiens members of
      > the genus Homo.
      >
      > The Jesuit paleontologist spells out for us his concern over "the
      > monogenism of the theologians" when he writes:
      >
      > ' ... what the monogenism of the
      > theologians demands is not only
      > the uniqueness of an original
      > couple -- but the sudden
      > appearance of two individuals fully
      > complete in their specific
      > development from the very first
      > moment. At the very least, the Adam
      > of the theologians must have been
      > from the outset a Homo sapiens.' (19)
      >
      > I believe it is fair to say that Teilhard would have been more
      > comfortable had his Church been open to the possibility of
      > viewing the doctrine of Original Sin in a symbolic or allegorical
      > light. If the Catholic Communion of the day had been willing to
      > approach the story of humankind's first sin in a non-literalist
      > fashion, then that Communion could have been much more
      > flexible apropos of monogenism vs. polygenism.
      >
      > Certainly, it seems to be the case that the Jesuit thinker and
      > Pope Pius XII were leaning in opposite directions when it came
      > to Original Sin and monogenism. The Auvergnian paleontologist
      > was favourably disposed to polygenism because it presented
      > itself to him as more in keeping with evolutionary science than
      > did monogenism, and because he saw no need to safeguard a
      > theological theory which asserts the biological transmission,
      > to all people, of the debasing taint of a sin committed by the
      > first human couple. Pius XII, on the other hand, was resolutely
      > unwilling to abandon monogenism because, on the basis of
      > his rather literalist religious faith, the Pontiff considered it
      his
      > duty to defend the traditional theological dogma that Adam
      > and Eve biologically, through a direct line of descent, passed
      > along, to all of humanity, the noxious effects of their sin, the
      > first sin in the world.
      >
      > In accounting for the evolutionary emergence of humanity, then,
      > Teilhard de Chardin (unlike Pius XII) would have been quite
      > content, as he tells us in a 1947 paper, 'to substitute a
      > collective "matrix" and a collective heredity for the womb of our
      > mother Eve.' (20) In the opinion of the French Jesuit, such a
      > substitution would have had the salutary effect of releasing
      > Christians 'from the necessity (progressively more unacceptable)
      > of having, illogically, to derive the whole human race from a
      > single couple.' (21) I do not believe it would be straying from the
      > truth to say that Teilhard went to his grave in the hope that the
      > day would eventually dawn when his Church would make the
      > substitution in question.
      >
      >
      > A NOTE CONCERNING MONOPHYLETISM AND
      > POLYPHYLETISM
      >
      > Up to now this submission has concerned itself exclusively with
      > the monogenism vs. polygenism debate and with Teilhard's
      > stance vis-a-vis that debate. As we have already noted, in 1950,
      > the Jesuit paleontologist was prompted, by Pope Pius XII's
      > encyclical, 'Humani Generis' to write a short essay entitled
      > 'Monogenism and Monophyletism: An Essential Distinction'.
      > In his essay Père Teilhard mentions "monophyletism" and
      > "polyphyletism" and cautions us not to confuse these with
      > "monogenism" and "polygenism". To assist us in avoiding any
      > such confusion, he briefly sums up the definitions of the four
      > terms as follows.
      >
      > 'Mono- and-poly-genism: one or a
      > number of original human couples.
      >
      > Mono- and poly-phyletism: one or a
      > number of branches (or phyla) at the
      > foundation of mankind.' (22)
      >
      > Now, as we have already observed, the Jesuit paleontologist,
      > although he does not deny outright the possibility of a
      > single human couple as the biological source of all of
      > humankind, has a tendency to shy away from monogenism.
      > He inclines rather to polygenism, a hypothesis which postulates
      > more than one couple at humanity's origins. However, he
      > manifests no reluctance to accept monophyletism (humankind
      > seen as a single branch of life). And, as we would expect, he
      > is not keen on the idea of polyphyletism (humankind viewed as
      > constituting several branches of life). An approximation of his
      > outlook gets summed up when in the following passage taken
      > from 'The Phenomenon of Man', he remarks
      >
      > 'that if the science of man can say
      > nothing directly for or against
      > monogenism (a single initial couple)
      > it can on the other hand come out
      > decisively, it seems, in favour of
      > monophyletism (a single phylum). (23)
      >
      > A little reflection, I believe, will be sufficient to confirm us in
      the
      > view that polyphyletism is out of sync with Teilhard's overall
      > outlook. It would be very difficult, as I see it, to envisage him
      > opposing the notion that humanity constitutes a single branch
      > of terrestrial life. Within the pages of 'The Phenomenon of Man'
      > he does grant the possibility that, as some scientists have
      > argued, humankind may have gotten started more or less
      > simultaneously 'in several regions on the "anthropoid layer"
      > of the Pliocene period, thereby following the general mechanics
      > of all life.' (24) But he hastens to add, that the occurrence of
      > such start-ups, within a limited time frame (presumably, no
      > more than a very few thousand years) at several geographic
      > locations, is not to be regarded as an instance of polyphyletism.
      > 'This', he tells us,
      >
      > 'is not properly speaking "polyphyletism",
      > because the different points of germination
      > are located on the same zoological stem,
      > but it is an extensive mutation of the whole
      > stem itself.' (25)
      >
      > Quite clearly, for the Jesuit paleontologist, all the species of
      > the human zoological group are part and parcel of the same
      > biological stem, or branch, or phylum on the tree of life.
      > Humankind in its entirety constitutes the single and only
      > living branch, on our planet, which thinks, which forms the
      > one entity that he calls the noosphere.
      >
      >
      > CONCLUDING REMARKS
      >
      > In conclusion, then, I think we are safe in saying that,
      > concerning humankind, the Jesuit thinker's sympathies
      > are directed towards polygenism and monophyletism.
      >
      > It is interesting to note, as well, what a long shadow is
      > cast by the traditional Christian doctrine of a Fall from
      >
      > grace (by way of an Original Sin) on the part of the first
      > two human beings on Earth. Even to this day, that
      > shadow is influencing the way a goodly number of
      > Christians think about the monogenism and polygenism.
      >
      > It is my view that the monogenism vs. polygenism debate
      > can serve as a reminder of the difficulties we risk falling into
      > if we accept a scriptural story in too literal a fashion. In
      > my opinion, Pius XII, no doubt with the best of intentions, fell
      > into just such a difficulty in regard to the biblical account of
      > Adam and Eve's Fall from grace. From my perspective at any
      > rate, this Pontiff, by proceeding as he did, cut himself, and
      > many persons in his Church, off from a flexibility of thought
      > that could have been more accommodating vis-a-vis the
      > polygenetic hypothesis. Speaking just for myself, at this
      > juncture, I will state that I invariably experience a certain
      > discomfort when I hear it said that this or that scientific
      > theory is out of bounds for us on the sole basis that the
      > said theory is not in harmony with a religious doctrine
      > that is founded on a more or less literal reading of scripture.
      >
      > The conclusion of this submission has now been reached.
      >
      >
      > Notes:
      >
      > (17) 'Human Energy', in 'Human Energy' (Collins, 1969), pp.
      > 128-129.
      > (18) 'Monogenism and Monophyletism: An Essential
      > Distinction', in 'Christianity' p. 210 (In footnote # 1).
      > (19) 'Monogenism and Monophyletism: An Essential
      > Distinction', in 'Christianity' p. 210.
      > (20) 'Reflections on Original Sin', in 'Christianity', p. 197.
      > (21) 'Reflections on Original Sin', in 'Christianity', p. 197.
      > (22) 'Monogenism and Monophyletism: An Essential
      > Distinction', in 'Christianity' p. 209.
      > (23) 'Phenomenon', Book 3, Chapter I, p. 209 (In footnote # 8).
      > (24) 'Phenomenon', Book 3, Chapter I, p. 207.
      > (25) 'Phenomenon', Book 3, Chapter I, pp. 207-208.
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Janice B. Paulsen
      Thanks, Alec, for this splendid scientific confirmation :-) ! I have noted that the Genesis story of creation is considered as myth in documents produced by
      Message 2 of 16 , Aug 2, 2004
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Thanks, Alec, for this splendid scientific confirmation :-) !
        I have noted that the Genesis story of creation is considered as "myth"
        in documents produced by most non-fundamentalist Protestant churches today.
        Thanks also to Brian, Mary Marguerite, Judy, and Beatrix for their
        supportive and/or enlightening posts to to this thread.
        And HOORAY for all our Teilhardians who have purchased and are in the
        process of reading Sarah-Appleton Weber's new translation of The Human
        Phenomenon. The notes themselves are worth the reading! I believe the
        original credit goes to Bill Cranston who first alerted our list to this
        remarkable new translation!
        Bless you all,
        Janice

        hecd2 wrote:

        > Dear Brian et al,
        >
        > Thank you very much for this post - I must say that I agree with
        > almost everything that you write here. I agree that it would be good
        > if organised religions were a little less dogmatic and a little more
        > accepting of new ideas and new findings. Of course the problem with
        > religious dogma that creeps into pronouncing on natural phenomena is
        > that it is likely to be proven wrong to the embarassment of the
        > church. Geocentrism and even the theory of evolution itself fall into
        > this category.
        >
        > There is just one thing I want to comment on and it is the idea of
        > Teilhard as reported by you thus:
        >
        > 'Did that "crowd" have its beginnings monogenetically or
        > polygenetically? In Teilhard's opinion, as he expresses it in "The
        > Phenomenon of Man", science, on its own, cannot see back to those
        > beginnings to pronounce assuredly on the matter, one way or the
        > other.'
        >
        > In other words, it is Teilhard's view, that, although he tends to
        > support the polygenic view, science cannot authoritatively decide
        > whether humans had polygenic or monogenic origins. The reason for
        > this is that Teilhard was speaking with the language of science of
        > the 1950s - the language of palaeontology and classical evolutionary
        > theory. The thing that was missing then and that allows us to state
        > with certainty that a monogenic origin for the human species is not
        > an option is molecular biology.
        >
        > The Phenomenon of Man predates the discovery of the structure of DNA
        > by several years and predates the now mature science of molecular
        > biology by more than a decade. Molecular biology, with several lines
        > of evidence, tells us that monogeny is not an option. In fact the
        > combination of molecular biology and population genetics tells us
        > that since the divergence of the human and chimpanzee lineages six
        > million years ago the human population has not fallen below 10,000
        > individuals.
        >
        > I could post many references to several independent lines of
        > evidence, but most of them require either expertise in molecular
        > biology or explanation. So I'll stick with one line of evidence
        > which can stand as illustration of the others:
        >
        > At its absolute simplest, if we consider a highly polymorphic locus
        > like DRB-1 (that is, a place on the human genome that has many
        > different forms between different people) in the Human Leucocyte
        > Antigen complex (a part of the human genome that is very variable
        > between people) we find 58 human alleles (in other words, at this one
        > place in the human genome, by sampling the genomes of different
        > people we have found 58 different forms - there are bound to be many
        > more as our sample is limited). By carrying out analyses of the pan-
        > specific alleles (ie the variations at that point in the genome that
        > we share with chimpanzees and other great apes) we can determine the
        > likely coalescence dates of allelesn (different alleles diverge from
        > comon ancestors -the coalescnce date is the point in time in the past
        > where they diverged), by derivation of a phylogenetic tree from pan-
        > specific divergence of individual alleles. That indicates that all 58
        > alleles persisted through the last 500,000 years of human evolution.
        > The 58 alleles coalesce to 44 lineages by 1.7 Myr BP and to 21
        > lineages by 6 Myr BP (the approximate date of divergence of human and
        > chimpanzee ancestors). Since anatomically modern humans emerge at
        > 125,000 years BP and culturally modern humans at 50,000 years BP, and
        > the human lineage polymorphism at this locus is 58 alleles during
        > this period, this puts a mathematically logical lower limit on the
        > minimum human population size during culturally modern human
        > existence of 29 individuals which in itself destroys the concept of
        > monogeny.
        >
        > Formal population genetics demands a much larger population than 29
        > individuals for the maintenance of 58 alleles in a situation where
        > neutral drift and balanced evolution (where heterozygosity has more
        > fitness than any homozygosity) is occurring, and the conclusion from
        > these quantitative evolutionary analyses is that the minimum human
        > population bottleneck was around 10,000 individuals.
        >
        > If we take this evidence and add in the many other lines available
        > from mitochondrial DNA, Y-chromosome DNA, beta-globin, apolipoprotein
        > C II, analyses of loci other than DRB1 in the major
        > histocompatibility complex, the conclusion that humans have a
        > polygenic origin is inescapable. (I am conscious that I have used a
        > lot of jargon in this post but it's late and I'm tired - if anyone
        > wants me to try to explain what I have said more clearly, they have
        > only to ask and I promse to oblige.)
        >
        > So how do strict catholics react to this scientific evidence for the
        > polygenic origins of modern humans?
        >
        > The really strict ones say that the science is mistaken because it
        > conflicts with the dogma and they would rather go with the dogma.
        > That way lies embarassment. More enlightened ones have an approach
        > that accepts the biological polygenism of humans: they suggest that
        > in some generation two of the human ancestors were given souls,
        > committed original sin and passed their humanity to their
        > descendants. This is a logically acceptable conclusion but has rather
        > difficult philosophical and moral implications - this hypothesis
        > demands that people with and without souls lived together as
        > partners. Furthermore, it logically admits the possibility that
        > people with and without souls exist today - a deeply disturbing
        > hypothesis.
        >
        > My view is that the most elegant theological solution to this
        > conundrum is that we can hold that the fall is something experienced
        > by a human population emerging into a full understanding of the
        > consequences of their action - this in no way undermines the doctrine
        > (and the observation!) of mankind's fallen nature. If the Church is
        > happy to accept now that the six day creation is a symbolic
        > description of reality, I can't see why adopting the same approach
        > with regard to literal Adam and Eve and Original Sin is so difficult.
        >
        > By the way science confirms that modern humans are a monophyletic
        > group (ie arising from a single *group* of closely related ancestors -
        > in fact modern humans from all over the world are more closely
        > related that the majority of mammmalian species.) This finding of
        > molecular biology triumphantly confirms Teilhard's opinions about the
        > monophyletic origins of modern humans - I can expand on this too if
        > anyone is interested.
        >
        > Alec
        > http://www.evolutionpages.com
        >
        --
        Janice B. Paulsen,
        Webmaster - Le quartier français du village planétaire:
        http://www.richmond.edu/~jpaulsen/gvfrench.html
        http://oncampus.richmond.edu/~jpaulsen/gvfrench.html
        jpaulsen@... | http://www.richmond.edu/~jpaulsen/
        Former MMLangLab Director, Univ Richmond VA, USA
        Ancien professeur de français
        Manager - Teilhard de Chardin eGroup :
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teilhard/
        Webmaster - SPC Online : http://salisburypc.org/
        --
      • hecd2
        Janice, thank you so much for your appreciation. You make the effort worthwhile. Well, I took delivery of my Appleton-Weber translation of The Human
        Message 3 of 16 , Aug 2, 2004
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Janice, thank you so much for your appreciation. You make the effort
          worthwhile.

          Well, I took delivery of my Appleton-Weber translation of The Human
          Phenomenon about a week ago - I am yet to read it from cover to
          cover. I miss the understatement of the Bernard Wall translation (he
          kept his contribution almost totally under covers and gave all the
          credit to Teilhard) whereas this new translation is touted on Amazon
          under the key author 'Sarah Appleton-Weber'. I also lament the fact
          that the Wall translation has a genuinely heavyweight introducton by
          Julian Huxley and this is replaced in the newer translation by the
          very lightweight Brian Swimme. However the Teilhard text itself
          translated seems to be much clearer and nearer to the spirit of the
          original.

          The translation has been available for 4 or 5 years but only in
          hardcover at an absolutely outrageous price. Its recent renaissance
          is almost entirely due to the publication of the paperback last year
          at a reasonable price.

          I can't be 100% sure of this but it's my recollection that Mary
          Marguerite first brought this to the attention of the list. If I am
          wrong, I know that Bill will forgive me if I am wrong, but it is to
          Mary Marguerite's very constructive campaign on behalf of the new
          translation that I owe my determination to buy and study the new
          translation.

          Thank you, Mary, this is a good thing that you have done for me.

          Alec
          http://www.evolutionpages.com

          --- In teilhard@yahoogroups.com, "Janice B. Paulsen" <jpaulsen@r...>
          wrote:
          > Thanks, Alec, for this splendid scientific confirmation :-) !
          > I have noted that the Genesis story of creation is considered
          as "myth"
          > in documents produced by most non-fundamentalist Protestant
          churches today.
          > Thanks also to Brian, Mary Marguerite, Judy, and Beatrix for their
          > supportive and/or enlightening posts to to this thread.
          > And HOORAY for all our Teilhardians who have purchased and are in
          the
          > process of reading Sarah-Appleton Weber's new translation of The
          Human
          > Phenomenon. The notes themselves are worth the reading! I believe
          the
          > original credit goes to Bill Cranston who first alerted our list to
          this
          > remarkable new translation!
          > Bless you all,
          > Janice
          >
          > hecd2 wrote:
          >
          > > Dear Brian et al,
          > >
          > > Thank you very much for this post - I must say that I agree with
          > > almost everything that you write here. I agree that it would be
          good
          > > if organised religions were a little less dogmatic and a little
          more
          > > accepting of new ideas and new findings. Of course the problem
          with
          > > religious dogma that creeps into pronouncing on natural phenomena
          is
          > > that it is likely to be proven wrong to the embarassment of the
          > > church. Geocentrism and even the theory of evolution itself fall
          into
          > > this category.
          > >
          > > There is just one thing I want to comment on and it is the idea of
          > > Teilhard as reported by you thus:
          > >
          > > 'Did that "crowd" have its beginnings monogenetically or
          > > polygenetically? In Teilhard's opinion, as he expresses it in "The
          > > Phenomenon of Man", science, on its own, cannot see back to those
          > > beginnings to pronounce assuredly on the matter, one way or the
          > > other.'
          > >
          > > In other words, it is Teilhard's view, that, although he tends to
          > > support the polygenic view, science cannot authoritatively decide
          > > whether humans had polygenic or monogenic origins. The reason for
          > > this is that Teilhard was speaking with the language of science of
          > > the 1950s - the language of palaeontology and classical
          evolutionary
          > > theory. The thing that was missing then and that allows us to
          state
          > > with certainty that a monogenic origin for the human species is
          not
          > > an option is molecular biology.
          > >
          > > The Phenomenon of Man predates the discovery of the structure of
          DNA
          > > by several years and predates the now mature science of molecular
          > > biology by more than a decade. Molecular biology, with several
          lines
          > > of evidence, tells us that monogeny is not an option. In fact the
          > > combination of molecular biology and population genetics tells us
          > > that since the divergence of the human and chimpanzee lineages six
          > > million years ago the human population has not fallen below 10,000
          > > individuals.
          > >
          > > I could post many references to several independent lines of
          > > evidence, but most of them require either expertise in molecular
          > > biology or explanation. So I'll stick with one line of evidence
          > > which can stand as illustration of the others:
          > >
          > > At its absolute simplest, if we consider a highly polymorphic
          locus
          > > like DRB-1 (that is, a place on the human genome that has many
          > > different forms between different people) in the Human Leucocyte
          > > Antigen complex (a part of the human genome that is very variable
          > > between people) we find 58 human alleles (in other words, at this
          one
          > > place in the human genome, by sampling the genomes of different
          > > people we have found 58 different forms - there are bound to be
          many
          > > more as our sample is limited). By carrying out analyses of the
          pan-
          > > specific alleles (ie the variations at that point in the genome
          that
          > > we share with chimpanzees and other great apes) we can determine
          the
          > > likely coalescence dates of allelesn (different alleles diverge
          from
          > > comon ancestors -the coalescnce date is the point in time in the
          past
          > > where they diverged), by derivation of a phylogenetic tree from
          pan-
          > > specific divergence of individual alleles. That indicates that
          all 58
          > > alleles persisted through the last 500,000 years of human
          evolution.
          > > The 58 alleles coalesce to 44 lineages by 1.7 Myr BP and to 21
          > > lineages by 6 Myr BP (the approximate date of divergence of human
          and
          > > chimpanzee ancestors). Since anatomically modern humans emerge at
          > > 125,000 years BP and culturally modern humans at 50,000 years BP,
          and
          > > the human lineage polymorphism at this locus is 58 alleles during
          > > this period, this puts a mathematically logical lower limit on the
          > > minimum human population size during culturally modern human
          > > existence of 29 individuals which in itself destroys the concept
          of
          > > monogeny.
          > >
          > > Formal population genetics demands a much larger population than
          29
          > > individuals for the maintenance of 58 alleles in a situation where
          > > neutral drift and balanced evolution (where heterozygosity has
          more
          > > fitness than any homozygosity) is occurring, and the conclusion
          from
          > > these quantitative evolutionary analyses is that the minimum human
          > > population bottleneck was around 10,000 individuals.
          > >
          > > If we take this evidence and add in the many other lines available
          > > from mitochondrial DNA, Y-chromosome DNA, beta-globin,
          apolipoprotein
          > > C II, analyses of loci other than DRB1 in the major
          > > histocompatibility complex, the conclusion that humans have a
          > > polygenic origin is inescapable. (I am conscious that I have
          used a
          > > lot of jargon in this post but it's late and I'm tired - if anyone
          > > wants me to try to explain what I have said more clearly, they
          have
          > > only to ask and I promse to oblige.)
          > >
          > > So how do strict catholics react to this scientific evidence for
          the
          > > polygenic origins of modern humans?
          > >
          > > The really strict ones say that the science is mistaken because it
          > > conflicts with the dogma and they would rather go with the dogma.
          > > That way lies embarassment. More enlightened ones have an approach
          > > that accepts the biological polygenism of humans: they suggest
          that
          > > in some generation two of the human ancestors were given souls,
          > > committed original sin and passed their humanity to their
          > > descendants. This is a logically acceptable conclusion but has
          rather
          > > difficult philosophical and moral implications - this hypothesis
          > > demands that people with and without souls lived together as
          > > partners. Furthermore, it logically admits the possibility that
          > > people with and without souls exist today - a deeply disturbing
          > > hypothesis.
          > >
          > > My view is that the most elegant theological solution to this
          > > conundrum is that we can hold that the fall is something
          experienced
          > > by a human population emerging into a full understanding of the
          > > consequences of their action - this in no way undermines the
          doctrine
          > > (and the observation!) of mankind's fallen nature. If the Church
          is
          > > happy to accept now that the six day creation is a symbolic
          > > description of reality, I can't see why adopting the same approach
          > > with regard to literal Adam and Eve and Original Sin is so
          difficult.
          > >
          > > By the way science confirms that modern humans are a monophyletic
          > > group (ie arising from a single *group* of closely related
          ancestors -
          > > in fact modern humans from all over the world are more closely
          > > related that the majority of mammmalian species.) This finding of
          > > molecular biology triumphantly confirms Teilhard's opinions about
          the
          > > monophyletic origins of modern humans - I can expand on this too
          if
          > > anyone is interested.
          > >
          > > Alec
          > > http://www.evolutionpages.com
          > >
          > --
          > Janice B. Paulsen,
          > Webmaster - Le quartier français du village planétaire:
          > http://www.richmond.edu/~jpaulsen/gvfrench.html
          > http://oncampus.richmond.edu/~jpaulsen/gvfrench.html
          > jpaulsen@r... | http://www.richmond.edu/~jpaulsen/
          > Former MMLangLab Director, Univ Richmond VA, USA
          > Ancien professeur de français
          > Manager - Teilhard de Chardin eGroup :
          > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teilhard/
          > Webmaster - SPC Online : http://salisburypc.org/
          > --
        • robko0777
          Dear Alex, The new translation has not been universally well recieved, as this review at Amozon indicates: This new translation is welcome, yet it makes
          Message 4 of 16 , Aug 3, 2004
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear Alex,
            The new translation has not been universally well recieved, as this
            review at Amozon indicates:

            "This new translation is welcome, yet it makes claims beyond its
            value. It is offered as a corrective to the serious deficiencies of
            the 1959 translation of Bernard Wall, although he is never acknowledge
            by name. Only a few illustrations are given of these serious
            deficiencies, but the man one concerns the title, where the Phenomenon
            of Man is said to be serious mistranslation. One observes how the word
            ?man? is judiciously avoided throughout, often making a sentence
            longer or awkward through this avoidance. In general, this new
            translation reads less clearly than Wall?s version. Sentences are
            often vague or awkward where in Wall they are sharp and clear. I
            recommend anyone to do a sentence by sentence comparison for themselves.
            Leaving aside the question of the merits of the translation itself,
            the claims made in the Forward and the Introduction embody an attitude
            foreign to that of Teilhard. The work is spoken of with high
            excitement for things it is believed to imply, but which it does not
            say. Teilhard insists that this Essay is strictly scientific and not
            philosophical or theological, yet the discussions in these
            introductions treat it as though it is, thus aligning it with
            precisely the misguided criticisms it received in 1959. There is even
            a tinge of New Ageism in them. One feels that all these comments are
            all unnecessary clutter, and that the original introduction of Julian
            Huxley is of far higher quality, to the point, and more in keeping
            with the actual concerns of Teilhard the scientist.

            In my view this new translation does not improve on Wall?s
            translation, and in many ways it is not as good. I was left rather
            disappointed."

            The Wall translation is still available, and at a much more modest
            price, and since all the literature on Teilhard refers to this
            translation it is the best one to have. Probably good to have both at
            hand.

            For myself, I was put off by the Brian Swimme introduction in the new
            version and feel it would be a good idea to remove it and restore the
            original Huxley one. Perhaps the Teilhard experts here might suggest
            this to the publishers. Also, the original title "The Phenomenon of
            Man" is correct from the French.

            Rob

            --- In teilhard@yahoogroups.com, "hecd2" <hecd2@y...> wrote:
            > Janice, thank you so much for your appreciation. You make the effort
            > worthwhile.
            >
            > Well, I took delivery of my Appleton-Weber translation of The Human
            > Phenomenon about a week ago - I am yet to read it from cover to
            > cover. I miss the understatement of the Bernard Wall translation (he
            > kept his contribution almost totally under covers and gave all the
            > credit to Teilhard) whereas this new translation is touted on Amazon
            > under the key author 'Sarah Appleton-Weber'. I also lament the fact
            > that the Wall translation has a genuinely heavyweight introducton by
            > Julian Huxley and this is replaced in the newer translation by the
            > very lightweight Brian Swimme. However the Teilhard text itself
            > translated seems to be much clearer and nearer to the spirit of the
            > original.
            >
            > The translation has been available for 4 or 5 years but only in
            > hardcover at an absolutely outrageous price. Its recent renaissance
            > is almost entirely due to the publication of the paperback last year
            > at a reasonable price.
            >
            > I can't be 100% sure of this but it's my recollection that Mary
            > Marguerite first brought this to the attention of the list. If I am
            > wrong, I know that Bill will forgive me if I am wrong, but it is to
            > Mary Marguerite's very constructive campaign on behalf of the new
            > translation that I owe my determination to buy and study the new
            > translation.
            >
            > Thank you, Mary, this is a good thing that you have done for me.
            >
            > Alec
            > http://www.evolutionpages.com
            >
          • Richard Saam
            ... I wonder if a formal statistical analysis would define this 10,000 individuals as a mean with a numerical standard deviation around it? In other words,
            Message 5 of 16 , Aug 4, 2004
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              Dear Alec and all:

              > snip
              >
              > Formal population genetics demands a much larger population than 29
              > individuals for the maintenance of 58 alleles in a situation where
              > neutral drift and balanced evolution (where heterozygosity has more
              > fitness than any homozygosity) is occurring, and the conclusion from
              > these quantitative evolutionary analyses is that the minimum human
              > population bottleneck was around 10,000 individuals.

              I wonder if a formal statistical analysis would define this 10,000
              individuals as a mean with a numerical standard deviation around it? In
              other words, can "around" be quantified statistically.

              >
              >
              > If we take this evidence and add in the many other lines available
              > from mitochondrial DNA, Y-chromosome DNA, beta-globin, apolipoprotein
              > C II, analyses of loci other than DRB1 in the major
              > histocompatibility complex, the conclusion that humans have a
              > polygenic origin is inescapable.



              The following article presents some recent work with MITOCHONDRIAL DNA.
              Previous work in this area postulated a common 'Eve' ancestor of the
              human race. Now I assume the statistical use of MITOCHONDRIAL DNA clock
              mutations for this purpose is called into question.

              Richard

              *****************************

              Chemical Engineering News
              June 21, 2004
              Volume 82, Number 25
              pp. 41-42


              MITOCHONDRIAL DNA FROM MOM AND DAD
              Recent results challenge assumption that humans inherit this DNA solely
              from the mother

              CELIA M. HENRY, C&EN WASHINGTON

              Mitochondrial DNA (MtDNA) is a circular DNA molecule that is essential
              for mitochondrial function and, unlike the nuclear genome, is present in
              multiple copies in most cells. MtDNA has been thought to be inherited
              only from the mother and therefore not subject to the process known as
              recombination, which is the exchange of homologous segments between two
              DNA molecules that results in the formation of new DNA sequences.

              Armed with maternal inheritance and known mutation rates, scientists
              have used mtDNA as a clock in studies of human origins and evolution.
              Recent work, however, shows that the assumptions about maternal
              inheritance and recombination may not be as ironclad as previously thought.

              In 2002, Marianne Schwartz and John Vissing at Copenhagen University
              Hospital (Rigshospitalet), in Denmark, revealed that they had a patient
              with a mitochondrial disorder who had inherited mtDNA from his father
              [N. Engl. J. Med., 347, 576 (2002)]. Paternal mtDNA accounted for 90% of
              the mtDNA in the patient's muscle cells.

              PIONEERING Harvard's Khrapko led the research team that obtained the
              first direct experimental evidence that recombination occurs in human
              mitochondrial DNA.
              COURTESY OF KONSTANTIN KHRAPKO

              Their work attracted the attention of Konstantin Khrapko, who is an
              assistant professor at Harvard Medical School. "When Schwartz and
              Vissing published their NEJM paper, I realized that their case can be
              used to test for recombination," Khrapko says.

              Khrapko and his colleagues have collaborated with Schwartz and Vissing
              to show that the mtDNA in this patient has undergone recombination
              [Science, 304, 981 (2004)]--that is, single DNA molecules contain
              sequences inherited maternally and paternally.

              Khrapko and his coworkers also have found evidence for recombination in
              human mtDNA in a different system, but that work is still in progress.
              "There are many researchers who reject recombination in humans and in
              higher animals," he says. "Our evidence supports those who accept it,
              though for them our results may seem trivial."

              The researchers used a paternal-specific endonuclease to cleave the
              mtDNA and then amplified the DNA using the polymerase chain reaction
              (PCR)--starting from single mtDNA molecules to avoid in vitro
              recombination. They recovered 450 PCR products that contained a maternal
              sequence at the cleavage site and screened them for paternal sequences
              at another position, yielding 33 such products. The DNA in those
              products contained alternating maternal and paternal sequences, a
              hallmark of recombination.

              They found two structural classes of recombinants: molecules containing
              short paternal sequences in otherwise maternally derived sequences and
              those with paternal sequences flanking maternal sequences.

              Recombinants accounted for about 0.7% of the total mtDNA in the
              patient's muscles. They don't know at this point whether the
              recombinants can be inherited by subsequent generations.

              Khrapko points out that there is confusion with the term recombination.
              Some people are referring to recombination at the molecular level when
              they use the term; others are referring to the manifestation of this
              process at the population level. At the molecular level, recombination
              is simply the exchange of DNA between mtDNA molecules.

              "Traces of recombination in the population additionally require paternal
              inheritance of mtDNA, sufficient mixing of maternal and paternal DNA
              within tissue to allow exchanges between them, and inheritance of the
              recombinants through the germ line," Khrapko says. "Furthermore, all
              these processes should happen frequently enough; otherwise they will
              leave no record at the population level."

              Eyre-Walker
              COURTESY OF ADAM EYRE-WALKER

              Khrapko's current results apply only to the molecular level. They also
              demonstrate that, if inherited, paternal mtDNA does have a chance to
              recombine with maternal mtDNA. "If there were no recombination at the
              molecular level, then there should be none at the population level
              either," he says. "But occurrence of recombination on the molecular
              level does not guarantee that it will be visible at the population level."

              Five years ago, John Maynard Smith, who died recently at the age of 84,
              and Adam C. Eyre-Walker, codirector of the Centre for the Study of
              Evolution at the University of Sussex, Brighton, England, were among the
              first to suggest the possibility of recombination in mtDNA [Science,
              286, 2524 (1999)]. That suggestion was controversial from the outset.

              "I think what's really generated the controversy is a certain amount of
              inertia in the field and a certain amount of fear that recombination of
              mitochondrial DNA is going to upset an awful lot of the work that
              previously has been done in mitochondrial DNA, particularly in humans,"
              Eyre-Walker says. "However, that's not really the case. It's not going
              to upset every result we've ever obtained using mitochondrial DNA."
            • Richard Saam
              Dear Beatrix and all ... Just a short observation: In a computer sales magazine, the inside page is addressed to the college crowd. A college dorm is
              Message 6 of 16 , Aug 4, 2004
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                Dear Beatrix and all

                >
                >
                > It's possible, too, that this special capacity is eroding even before it
                > moves forward. In my younger days the capacity for *strategic
                > thinking* seemed alot sharper than it is now. Public education was
                > better, but now it's hanging on by its fingernails. Can't theorize
                > very intelligently when you are ignorant. Nowadays I see not only
                > children but fairly mature teenagers still watching cartoons. I see
                > youngsters enmeshed in their electronic games, while sitting in a
                > car going through some of the most beautiful of God's Creation--not
                > ever looking out the window to see the "real world." I've visited
                > critical manufacturing facilities where corporate schools have been
                > erected to try to re-teach their young workers how to read manuals.

                Just a short observation:

                In a computer sales magazine, the inside page is addressed to the
                college crowd. A college dorm is pictured with desk, chair and various
                role model pictures on the wall. But there in the midst of this
                panorama is a tower computer, lap top, flat screen viewer, scanner,
                printer, digital camera, ipod, DVD player, speakers, Microsoft Word
                along with the necessary surge protector auxiliary power unit adding up
                to a value of $8887.08.

                Students view the world through gadgets.

                Remembering back to another era, the major decision I had to make was to
                purchase a Picket (metal) or a Post (wooden) slide rule.

                Richard
              • hecd2
                Dear Richard, Thanks for posting this - I had missed the Science paper in May - suffice to say for the moment that this does not in any way affect the estimate
                Message 7 of 16 , Aug 4, 2004
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  Dear Richard,

                  Thanks for posting this - I had missed the Science paper in May -
                  suffice to say for the moment that this does not in any way affect
                  the estimate of 10,000 minimum bottleneck in any case.

                  I have now read both the Kratysberg Science paper and the Schwartz
                  NEJM paper and I don't think, on first reading, that they affect the
                  fundamental concept of mtDNA as a molecular tracer of matrilineal
                  ancestry, but it's complex and I want to think about it a bit more
                  before I post my reasons for thinking that. (And such a post would be
                  rather long and time consuming to prepare, and understood by a
                  handful or less on the list).

                  As for the errors around the estimate of 10,000 indivduals - of
                  course you are right, but I cannot, without a great deal of effort,
                  post the basis of the statistical errors (don't forget that the
                  estimate of 10,000 individuals minimum is based on multiple lines of
                  evidence). What is certain is that an ancestry of less than 29 is
                  logically disallowed, before we even consider population genetics. I
                  think (gut feel) if we did the analysis we would get a realistic
                  minmum population (say with 99% confidence) of more than 5,000
                  individuals. But that's gut-feel.

                  Alec
                  http://www.evolutionpages.com

                  --- In teilhard@yahoogroups.com, Richard Saam <rdsaam@a...> wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  > Dear Alec and all:
                  >
                  > > snip
                  > >
                  > > Formal population genetics demands a much larger population than
                  29
                  > > individuals for the maintenance of 58 alleles in a situation where
                  > > neutral drift and balanced evolution (where heterozygosity has
                  more
                  > > fitness than any homozygosity) is occurring, and the conclusion
                  from
                  > > these quantitative evolutionary analyses is that the minimum human
                  > > population bottleneck was around 10,000 individuals.
                  >
                  > I wonder if a formal statistical analysis would define this 10,000
                  > individuals as a mean with a numerical standard deviation around
                  it? In
                  > other words, can "around" be quantified statistically.
                  >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > If we take this evidence and add in the many other lines available
                  > > from mitochondrial DNA, Y-chromosome DNA, beta-globin,
                  apolipoprotein
                  > > C II, analyses of loci other than DRB1 in the major
                  > > histocompatibility complex, the conclusion that humans have a
                  > > polygenic origin is inescapable.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > The following article presents some recent work with MITOCHONDRIAL
                  DNA.
                  > Previous work in this area postulated a common 'Eve' ancestor of
                  the
                  > human race. Now I assume the statistical use of MITOCHONDRIAL DNA
                  clock
                  > mutations for this purpose is called into question.
                  >
                  > Richard
                  >
                  > *****************************
                  >
                  > Chemical Engineering News
                  > June 21, 2004
                  > Volume 82, Number 25
                  > pp. 41-42
                  >
                  >
                  > MITOCHONDRIAL DNA FROM MOM AND DAD
                  > Recent results challenge assumption that humans inherit this DNA
                  solely
                  > from the mother
                  >
                  > CELIA M. HENRY, C&EN WASHINGTON
                  >
                  > Mitochondrial DNA (MtDNA) is a circular DNA molecule that is
                  essential
                  > for mitochondrial function and, unlike the nuclear genome, is
                  present in
                  > multiple copies in most cells. MtDNA has been thought to be
                  inherited
                  > only from the mother and therefore not subject to the process known
                  as
                  > recombination, which is the exchange of homologous segments between
                  two
                  > DNA molecules that results in the formation of new DNA sequences.
                  >
                  > Armed with maternal inheritance and known mutation rates,
                  scientists
                  > have used mtDNA as a clock in studies of human origins and
                  evolution.
                  > Recent work, however, shows that the assumptions about maternal
                  > inheritance and recombination may not be as ironclad as previously
                  thought.
                  >
                  > In 2002, Marianne Schwartz and John Vissing at Copenhagen
                  University
                  > Hospital (Rigshospitalet), in Denmark, revealed that they had a
                  patient
                  > with a mitochondrial disorder who had inherited mtDNA from his
                  father
                  > [N. Engl. J. Med., 347, 576 (2002)]. Paternal mtDNA accounted for
                  90% of
                  > the mtDNA in the patient's muscle cells.
                  >
                  > PIONEERING Harvard's Khrapko led the research team that obtained
                  the
                  > first direct experimental evidence that recombination occurs in
                  human
                  > mitochondrial DNA.
                  > COURTESY OF KONSTANTIN KHRAPKO
                  >
                  > Their work attracted the attention of Konstantin Khrapko, who is
                  an
                  > assistant professor at Harvard Medical School. "When Schwartz and
                  > Vissing published their NEJM paper, I realized that their case can
                  be
                  > used to test for recombination," Khrapko says.
                  >
                  > Khrapko and his colleagues have collaborated with Schwartz and
                  Vissing
                  > to show that the mtDNA in this patient has undergone recombination
                  > [Science, 304, 981 (2004)]--that is, single DNA molecules contain
                  > sequences inherited maternally and paternally.
                  >
                  > Khrapko and his coworkers also have found evidence for
                  recombination in
                  > human mtDNA in a different system, but that work is still in
                  progress.
                  > "There are many researchers who reject recombination in humans and
                  in
                  > higher animals," he says. "Our evidence supports those who accept
                  it,
                  > though for them our results may seem trivial."
                  >
                  > The researchers used a paternal-specific endonuclease to cleave the
                  > mtDNA and then amplified the DNA using the polymerase chain
                  reaction
                  > (PCR)--starting from single mtDNA molecules to avoid in vitro
                  > recombination. They recovered 450 PCR products that contained a
                  maternal
                  > sequence at the cleavage site and screened them for paternal
                  sequences
                  > at another position, yielding 33 such products. The DNA in those
                  > products contained alternating maternal and paternal sequences, a
                  > hallmark of recombination.
                  >
                  > They found two structural classes of recombinants: molecules
                  containing
                  > short paternal sequences in otherwise maternally derived sequences
                  and
                  > those with paternal sequences flanking maternal sequences.
                  >
                  > Recombinants accounted for about 0.7% of the total mtDNA in the
                  > patient's muscles. They don't know at this point whether the
                  > recombinants can be inherited by subsequent generations.
                  >
                  > Khrapko points out that there is confusion with the term
                  recombination.
                  > Some people are referring to recombination at the molecular level
                  when
                  > they use the term; others are referring to the manifestation of
                  this
                  > process at the population level. At the molecular level,
                  recombination
                  > is simply the exchange of DNA between mtDNA molecules.
                  >
                  > "Traces of recombination in the population additionally require
                  paternal
                  > inheritance of mtDNA, sufficient mixing of maternal and paternal
                  DNA
                  > within tissue to allow exchanges between them, and inheritance of
                  the
                  > recombinants through the germ line," Khrapko says. "Furthermore,
                  all
                  > these processes should happen frequently enough; otherwise they
                  will
                  > leave no record at the population level."
                  >
                  > Eyre-Walker
                  > COURTESY OF ADAM EYRE-WALKER
                  >
                  > Khrapko's current results apply only to the molecular level. They
                  also
                  > demonstrate that, if inherited, paternal mtDNA does have a chance
                  to
                  > recombine with maternal mtDNA. "If there were no recombination at
                  the
                  > molecular level, then there should be none at the population level
                  > either," he says. "But occurrence of recombination on the molecular
                  > level does not guarantee that it will be visible at the population
                  level."
                  >
                  > Five years ago, John Maynard Smith, who died recently at the age of
                  84,
                  > and Adam C. Eyre-Walker, codirector of the Centre for the Study of
                  > Evolution at the University of Sussex, Brighton, England, were
                  among the
                  > first to suggest the possibility of recombination in mtDNA
                  [Science,
                  > 286, 2524 (1999)]. That suggestion was controversial from the
                  outset.
                  >
                  > "I think what's really generated the controversy is a certain
                  amount of
                  > inertia in the field and a certain amount of fear that
                  recombination of
                  > mitochondrial DNA is going to upset an awful lot of the work that
                  > previously has been done in mitochondrial DNA, particularly in
                  humans,"
                  > Eyre-Walker says. "However, that's not really the case. It's not
                  going
                  > to upset every result we've ever obtained using mitochondrial DNA."
                • hecd2
                  Dear Richard and others ... DNA. ... the ... clock ... OK, I ve had a good nose round the two relevant papers. They are: Schwartz and Vissing, `Paternal
                  Message 8 of 16 , Aug 6, 2004
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Dear Richard and others
                    --- In teilhard@yahoogroups.com, Richard Saam <rdsaam@a...> wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    > Dear Alec and all:
                    >
                    >
                    > The following article presents some recent work with MITOCHONDRIAL
                    DNA.
                    > Previous work in this area postulated a common 'Eve' ancestor of
                    the
                    > human race. Now I assume the statistical use of MITOCHONDRIAL DNA
                    clock
                    > mutations for this purpose is called into question.
                    >
                    > Richard
                    >

                    OK, I've had a good nose round the two relevant papers. They are:
                    Schwartz and Vissing, `Paternal inheritance of mitochondrial DNA',
                    NEJM 347, 576 – 580 (2002)
                    Kraytsberg et al, `Recombination of human mitochondrial DNA', Science
                    304, 981 (2004)

                    They are not a challenge to the concept of the matrilineal Most
                    Recent Common Ancestor, and I don't think that they challenge the
                    mitochondrial means of tracing and dating matrilineal MRCA (which
                    gave rise to the name Mitochondrial Eve for the matrilineal MRCA).

                    1) They are not a challenge to the concept of matrilineal Most
                    Recent Common Ancestor. The matrilineal Most Recent Common Ancestor
                    of all humans alive today is the last woman who stands in the direct
                    maternal ancestry of all living humans. The existence of such an
                    individual does not depend on mitochondrial data – her existence is a
                    logical certainty. She was not the only female human ancestor of her
                    generation - there were other contemporaneous women who were
                    ancestors of at least part of the current human population (and it is
                    quite likely that there were other women who were also common
                    ancestors of all humans alive today – it is just that these other
                    common ancestors' lineage would not have been purely in the maternal
                    line – there would have been at least one generation where their
                    lineage would pass through the paternal line.) Anyway, we know
                    logically that a matrilineal MRCA must exist if we accept that humans
                    are monophyletic (spring from a single group of ancestors)

                    2) I don't think that they challenge the mitochondrial means of
                    tracing and dating matrilineal MRCA. Since we believe mammalian
                    mitochondrial DNA to be inherited strictly through the maternal line,
                    current variants (called alleles) of mtDNA currently extant in the
                    population should coalesce back to the matrilineal Most Recent Common
                    Ancestor and we can therefore estimate the date of matrilineal MRCA
                    from the mtDNA coalescence date. This current estimate for this date
                    is about 175,000 years ago. Now, of course, if mtDNA is not
                    inherited strictly in the maternal line it calls into question the
                    date of matrilineal MRCA derived from mitochondrial data (it doesn't
                    call into question the EXISTENCE of the last common ancestor of all
                    humans in the maternal line, who is bound to exist logically ascwe
                    saw above) – but it does question whether she can be traced with
                    mtDNA and it also questions other population studies relying on
                    strict maternal inheritance of mtDNA.

                    Now – do these two papers call the maternal inheritance of mtDNA into
                    question? The answer is no, or not very much. Given their titles,
                    that might be a surprising conclusion, so let's see why I say so.

                    The first thing to understand is that paternal mtDNA disappears early
                    in embryogenesis. Of course both male sperm and female egg cells
                    contain mtDNA. After fusion of sperm with egg to form a zygote both
                    paternal and maternal mtDNA is present, but the paternal mtDNA is
                    present in vastly less quantity (the egg contains much more
                    mitachondria than the sperm) and is soon eliminated. In in-vitro
                    fertilisation, where a sperm is directly injected into an oocyte,
                    paternal mtDNA can sometimes be detected up to the four and eight
                    cell stage of embryogenesis, but has never been detected in infants
                    born after in-vitro sterilisation. So the bottom line is that the
                    sperm mtDNA is rapidly and effectively eliminated in normal mammalian
                    embryos (thus supporting the use of mtDNA as a tracer for matrilineal
                    descent).

                    Now then, Schwartz's and Vissing's patient suffered from extreme
                    exercise intolerance and was unable to run for more than a few steps
                    at any time in his life even though he did not have wasted muscles or
                    other obvious physiological problems. What they found was that the
                    mtDNA in the patient's muscle tissue had a serious 2 base pair
                    deletion mutation that disabled a key gene (by the creation of a stop
                    codon at the midpoint of the gene) that is used in `food' to energy
                    conversion in the muscle (mitochondria are the organelles in the cell
                    that are responsible for this function). So the mutation was
                    responsible for the patient's inability to exercise. However, the
                    mutation was not found in the patient's fibroblasts, blood or hair.
                    More weirdly, it was found that most of the mitochondria in the
                    patient's muscle (about 90%) matched the patient's father mtDNA
                    exactly (except for the mutation of course). The patient's muscle
                    cells contained mitochondria with two variants of mtDNA and the other
                    10% matched his mother's mtDNA exactly. The mtDNA in all the other
                    tissues was normal – ie 100% maternal mtDNA. So it seems that not
                    only was the mutation disabling, but it prevented the paternal mtDNA
                    from being eliminated from the patient's muscle tissue – in fact it
                    allowed the proliferation of paternal over maternal mtDNA, but in the
                    muscles only. Kraytsberg et al merely showed that in this patient's
                    muscle cells a small level of recombination (DNA swapping) had
                    occurred between mitochondria with maternal mtDNA and paternal mtDNA.

                    So what does this mean for population genetics? First of all, it
                    represents a very rare situation where a mutation allows paternal
                    mtDNA to survive in one class of tissues, but not in other tissues.
                    Secondly, in order for the paternal mtDNA to be passed on to any
                    children of the patient, paternal mtDNA would need to be present in
                    the patient's sperm AND fail to be eliminated in the patient's
                    children. The former seems unlikely since paternal mtDNA was only
                    found in muscle tissue. If the paternal mtDNA could have been passed
                    on and not eliminated in embryogenesis, the serious nature of the
                    mutation would suggest it would not take long to be eliminated from
                    the population by natural selection.

                    As for the question of recombination, that is only relevant in the
                    rare and unusual case where more than one variation of mtDNA is
                    present in a cell (a condition known as heteroplasmy, which in this
                    case existed only in the patient's muscle tissue). The normal
                    situation is called homoplasmy and it the presence of only one
                    variant of mtDNA in the cell – in that case recombination, if it
                    occurs, has no effect, as the product of recombining two identical
                    genomes are two genomes identical to one another and their precursors.

                    All of which is a very long way of saying, no, I don't think that
                    this research calls the use of mtDNA in population into question, at
                    least not in a serious way. Congratulations to anyone who is still
                    with me.

                    Alec
                    http://www.evolutionpages.com
                  • Elizabeth Hensley
                    Hi Alec and all Nothing wrong with the science here, but as for the theology... Job: 12:10 says every living thing has a Nephesh. This is the same word that
                    Message 9 of 16 , Aug 7, 2004
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hi Alec and all

                      Nothing wrong with the science here, but as for the theology...

                      Job: 12:10 says every living thing has a "Nephesh."This is the same word that is translated as "soul." in Genesis 2:7. So, not only are there no Humans running around without souls, regardless if "Adam" and "Eve," had brothers and sisters, or not, but no Chimps are running around without souls either. No Neanderthals ever went soulless, and for that matter no skunks, rattlesnakes or flys do either. Which brings up an amusing story. One doubting young man asked C.S. Lewis , "If animals go to Heaven where does God put the mosquitoes?"

                      He replyed, "To answer your question on the same level you are asking it, a Heaven for mosquitoes and a Hell for Humans could be very easily combined!"

                      So why didn't Noah swat his two while he had the chance? :0)

                      Also, though most of Humanities firsts are indeed lost to history, we do know where the first shuttle is. It is named Enterprise and it is sitting in the Smithsonian. They recently had to protect it from Woodpeckers who were pecking holes in it. Sigh! :0((


                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: hecd2 <hecd2@...>
                      Sent: Aug 2, 2004 7:04 PM
                      To: teilhard@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: [teilhard] Re: (4 of 4) Monogenism Vs. Polygenism

                      Dear Brian et al,

                      Thank you very much for this post - I must say that I agree with
                      almost everything that you write here. I agree that it would be good
                      if organised religions were a little less dogmatic and a little more
                      accepting of new ideas and new findings. Of course the problem with
                      religious dogma that creeps into pronouncing on natural phenomena is
                      that it is likely to be proven wrong to the embarassment of the
                      church. Geocentrism and even the theory of evolution itself fall into
                      this category.

                      There is just one thing I want to comment on and it is the idea of
                      Teilhard as reported by you thus:

                      'Did that "crowd" have its beginnings monogenetically or
                      polygenetically? In Teilhard's opinion, as he expresses it in "The
                      Phenomenon of Man", science, on its own, cannot see back to those
                      beginnings to pronounce assuredly on the matter, one way or the
                      other.'

                      In other words, it is Teilhard's view, that, although he tends to
                      support the polygenic view, science cannot authoritatively decide
                      whether humans had polygenic or monogenic origins. The reason for
                      this is that Teilhard was speaking with the language of science of
                      the 1950s - the language of palaeontology and classical evolutionary
                      theory. The thing that was missing then and that allows us to state
                      with certainty that a monogenic origin for the human species is not
                      an option is molecular biology.

                      The Phenomenon of Man predates the discovery of the structure of DNA
                      by several years and predates the now mature science of molecular
                      biology by more than a decade. Molecular biology, with several lines
                      of evidence, tells us that monogeny is not an option. In fact the
                      combination of molecular biology and population genetics tells us
                      that since the divergence of the human and chimpanzee lineages six
                      million years ago the human population has not fallen below 10,000
                      individuals.

                      I could post many references to several independent lines of
                      evidence, but most of them require either expertise in molecular
                      biology or explanation. So I'll stick with one line of evidence
                      which can stand as illustration of the others:

                      At its absolute simplest, if we consider a highly polymorphic locus
                      like DRB-1 (that is, a place on the human genome that has many
                      different forms between different people) in the Human Leucocyte
                      Antigen complex (a part of the human genome that is very variable
                      between people) we find 58 human alleles (in other words, at this one
                      place in the human genome, by sampling the genomes of different
                      people we have found 58 different forms - there are bound to be many
                      more as our sample is limited). By carrying out analyses of the pan-
                      specific alleles (ie the variations at that point in the genome that
                      we share with chimpanzees and other great apes) we can determine the
                      likely coalescence dates of allelesn (different alleles diverge from
                      comon ancestors -the coalescnce date is the point in time in the past
                      where they diverged), by derivation of a phylogenetic tree from pan-
                      specific divergence of individual alleles. That indicates that all 58
                      alleles persisted through the last 500,000 years of human evolution.
                      The 58 alleles coalesce to 44 lineages by 1.7 Myr BP and to 21
                      lineages by 6 Myr BP (the approximate date of divergence of human and
                      chimpanzee ancestors). Since anatomically modern humans emerge at
                      125,000 years BP and culturally modern humans at 50,000 years BP, and
                      the human lineage polymorphism at this locus is 58 alleles during
                      this period, this puts a mathematically logical lower limit on the
                      minimum human population size during culturally modern human
                      existence of 29 individuals which in itself destroys the concept of
                      monogeny.

                      Formal population genetics demands a much larger population than 29
                      individuals for the maintenance of 58 alleles in a situation where
                      neutral drift and balanced evolution (where heterozygosity has more
                      fitness than any homozygosity) is occurring, and the conclusion from
                      these quantitative evolutionary analyses is that the minimum human
                      population bottleneck was around 10,000 individuals.

                      If we take this evidence and add in the many other lines available
                      from mitochondrial DNA, Y-chromosome DNA, beta-globin, apolipoprotein
                      C II, analyses of loci other than DRB1 in the major
                      histocompatibility complex, the conclusion that humans have a
                      polygenic origin is inescapable. (I am conscious that I have used a
                      lot of jargon in this post but it's late and I'm tired - if anyone
                      wants me to try to explain what I have said more clearly, they have
                      only to ask and I promse to oblige.)

                      So how do strict catholics react to this scientific evidence for the
                      polygenic origins of modern humans?

                      The really strict ones say that the science is mistaken because it
                      conflicts with the dogma and they would rather go with the dogma.
                      That way lies embarassment. More enlightened ones have an approach
                      that accepts the biological polygenism of humans: they suggest that
                      in some generation two of the human ancestors were given souls,
                      committed original sin and passed their humanity to their
                      descendants. This is a logically acceptable conclusion but has rather
                      difficult philosophical and moral implications - this hypothesis
                      demands that people with and without souls lived together as
                      partners. Furthermore, it logically admits the possibility that
                      people with and without souls exist today - a deeply disturbing
                      hypothesis.

                      My view is that the most elegant theological solution to this
                      conundrum is that we can hold that the fall is something experienced
                      by a human population emerging into a full understanding of the
                      consequences of their action - this in no way undermines the doctrine
                      (and the observation!) of mankind's fallen nature. If the Church is
                      happy to accept now that the six day creation is a symbolic
                      description of reality, I can't see why adopting the same approach
                      with regard to literal Adam and Eve and Original Sin is so difficult.

                      By the way science confirms that modern humans are a monophyletic
                      group (ie arising from a single *group* of closely related ancestors -
                      in fact modern humans from all over the world are more closely
                      related that the majority of mammmalian species.) This finding of
                      molecular biology triumphantly confirms Teilhard's opinions about the
                      monophyletic origins of modern humans - I can expand on this too if
                      anyone is interested.

                      Alec
                      http://www.evolutionpages.com





                      --- In teilhard@yahoogroups.com, BCowan6974@a... wrote:
                      >
                      > This is part 4 of 4.
                      >
                      > If I have understood him aright, the Jesuit paleontologist, around
                      > the middle of the last century, was saying that he, and others
                      > involved in the evolutionary sciences, were entertaining serious
                      > doubts about the ability of human beings to think competently
                      > about moral issues until after the emergence of Homo sapiens.
                      > Such doubts do not appear to me to be out of line or far fetched.
                      > Even after the emergence of Homo sapiens right up into the era
                      > of recorded history, we find a good deal of muddled (i. e. not very
                      > competent) ethical thinking. For example, some ancient peoples
                      > thought that the offering of human sacrifices to their gods was
                      > pious and worshipful, and Christianity was more than 1,800 years
                      > old before most Christians began to question the ethical status
                      > of slavery.
                      >
                      > Back in the 1930s and 1940s the emergence of Homo sapiens
                      > was thought to have occurred 20,000 or 30,000 years ago.
                      > Now, to be sure, against the backdrop of evolutionary time, a date
                      > of 20,000 or 30,000 in the past can be seen as a date which,
                      > figuratively speaking, occurred only yesterday. In a paper
                      > completed in 1937, Teilhard proposes that it was "only yesterday"
                      > that human thinking, in any significant fashion, turned away
                      > from the practical concerns of day-to-day survival and began to
                      > concentrate, in a more pronounced fashion, on theoretical issues,
                      > including, I would suspect, issues associated with moral theory.
                      > My best guess is that when he speaks of "only yesterday" he
                      > means "only after the appearance of Homo sapiens on the world
                      > scene". In any event, within the pages of the aforementioned
                      > 1937 essay, he writes:
                      >
                      > 'To discover and know has always been
                      > a deep tendency of our nature. Can we
                      > not recognize it already in cave man?
                      > But it is only yesterday that this
                      > essential need to know has become
                      > explicit and changed into a vital
                      > autonomous function, taking
                      > precedence in our lives over our
                      > preoccupations with food and
                      > drink.' (17)
                      >
                      > What I suspect the Jesuit thinker is suggesting here is that at
                      > least up to the appearance of Homo sapiens (and, indeed,
                      > probably well into the Homo sapiens era) thought was
                      > almost entirely preoccupied with concerns related to food,
                      > drink, shelter, safety and the like. There would, therefore,
                      > have been little place for theoretical thinking such as that
                      > involved in a serious pondering of moral issues.
                      >
                      > Now, as Teilhard saw it, what the traditional theologians of
                      > his day were implying was that thinking life, humankind, by
                      > way of the first human couple, Adam and Eve, appeared on
                      > our globe at the Homo sapiens stage of human evolutionary
                      > development. These theologians were proposing to the
                      > faithful that that the very first human beings were individuals
                      > whose mental abilities exceeded, by far, the intellectual
                      > capacities possessed by, say, Java man or Peking man.
                      >
                      > Traditional Christian theology, from Teilhard's perspective,
                      > presents us with a first human couple who are advanced
                      > enough in their ability to think that they are capable, without
                      > difficulty, of distinguishing right from wrong. And on the
                      > basis of this capability, the couple in question possessed
                      > the intellectual wherewithal to proceed, in an informed and
                      > consenting fashion, to commit the world's first moral trespass
                      > which is known as the Original Sin. Most of the Christian
                      > theologians of the mid twentieth century, in the view of the
                      > Jesuit thinker, were, at least implicitly, making the claim
                      > that Adam, the first man, was an individual whose
                      > intellectual acumen was such as to situate him at the
                      > Homo sapiens level of evolutionary development. Why? Well,
                      > only thus would Adam "be capable of bearing the responsibility
                      > for original sin.' (18) What Teilhard has to say about Adam here,
                      > can, I believe, also be legitimately extended to include Eve.
                      >
                      > So, in the opinion of the Auvergnian Jesuit, what the theologians
                      > who champion monogenism (as a method of safeguarding the
                      > biological transmission of the taint of the Original Sin) are, in
                      > effect doing, whether they realize it or not, is temporally
                      > situating the first humans at the commencement of the Homo
                      > sapiens era. Around the middle of the last century, the
                      > implication of the theological position under discussion was
                      > that humanity was no more than 20,000 or 30,000 years old.
                      >
                      > Not a few scientists of the day (with Teilhard being among them)
                      > were, of course, finding such an implication questionable
                      > because it was one which refused to attribute any sort of
                      > humanity to all those species, in the genus Homo, which
                      > preceded Homo sapiens, all the way from whatever hominian
                      > species may have antedated Java man right up to the
                      > Neanderthaloids. Many scientists, including Père Teilhard
                      > were not happy over this refusal of at least some measure of
                      > humanity to those hominians who lived before the dawn of
                      > Homo sapiens. Science and religion seemed to be heading
                      > towards an impasse with one another, sixty or seventy years
                      > ago, over this implication of monogenism which seemed to
                      > deny any sort of humanity to pre Homo sapiens members of
                      > the genus Homo.
                      >
                      > The Jesuit paleontologist spells out for us his concern over "the
                      > monogenism of the theologians" when he writes:
                      >
                      > ' ... what the monogenism of the
                      > theologians demands is not only
                      > the uniqueness of an original
                      > couple -- but the sudden
                      > appearance of two individuals fully
                      > complete in their specific
                      > development from the very first
                      > moment. At the very least, the Adam
                      > of the theologians must have been
                      > from the outset a Homo sapiens.' (19)
                      >
                      > I believe it is fair to say that Teilhard would have been more
                      > comfortable had his Church been open to the possibility of
                      > viewing the doctrine of Original Sin in a symbolic or allegorical
                      > light. If the Catholic Communion of the day had been willing to
                      > approach the story of humankind's first sin in a non-literalist
                      > fashion, then that Communion could have been much more
                      > flexible apropos of monogenism vs. polygenism.
                      >
                      > Certainly, it seems to be the case that the Jesuit thinker and
                      > Pope Pius XII were leaning in opposite directions when it came
                      > to Original Sin and monogenism. The Auvergnian paleontologist
                      > was favourably disposed to polygenism because it presented
                      > itself to him as more in keeping with evolutionary science than
                      > did monogenism, and because he saw no need to safeguard a
                      > theological theory which asserts the biological transmission,
                      > to all people, of the debasing taint of a sin committed by the
                      > first human couple. Pius XII, on the other hand, was resolutely
                      > unwilling to abandon monogenism because, on the basis of
                      > his rather literalist religious faith, the Pontiff considered it
                      his
                      > duty to defend the traditional theological dogma that Adam
                      > and Eve biologically, through a direct line of descent, passed
                      > along, to all of humanity, the noxious effects of their sin, the
                      > first sin in the world.
                      >
                      > In accounting for the evolutionary emergence of humanity, then,
                      > Teilhard de Chardin (unlike Pius XII) would have been quite
                      > content, as he tells us in a 1947 paper, 'to substitute a
                      > collective "matrix" and a collective heredity for the womb of our
                      > mother Eve.' (20) In the opinion of the French Jesuit, such a
                      > substitution would have had the salutary effect of releasing
                      > Christians 'from the necessity (progressively more unacceptable)
                      > of having, illogically, to derive the whole human race from a
                      > single couple.' (21) I do not believe it would be straying from the
                      > truth to say that Teilhard went to his grave in the hope that the
                      > day would eventually dawn when his Church would make the
                      > substitution in question.
                      >
                      >
                      > A NOTE CONCERNING MONOPHYLETISM AND
                      > POLYPHYLETISM
                      >
                      > Up to now this submission has concerned itself exclusively with
                      > the monogenism vs. polygenism debate and with Teilhard's
                      > stance vis-a-vis that debate. As we have already noted, in 1950,
                      > the Jesuit paleontologist was prompted, by Pope Pius XII's
                      > encyclical, 'Humani Generis' to write a short essay entitled
                      > 'Monogenism and Monophyletism: An Essential Distinction'.
                      > In his essay Père Teilhard mentions "monophyletism" and
                      > "polyphyletism" and cautions us not to confuse these with
                      > "monogenism" and "polygenism". To assist us in avoiding any
                      > such confusion, he briefly sums up the definitions of the four
                      > terms as follows.
                      >
                      > 'Mono- and-poly-genism: one or a
                      > number of original human couples.
                      >
                      > Mono- and poly-phyletism: one or a
                      > number of branches (or phyla) at the
                      > foundation of mankind.' (22)
                      >
                      > Now, as we have already observed, the Jesuit paleontologist,
                      > although he does not deny outright the possibility of a
                      > single human couple as the biological source of all of
                      > humankind, has a tendency to shy away from monogenism.
                      > He inclines rather to polygenism, a hypothesis which postulates
                      > more than one couple at humanity's origins. However, he
                      > manifests no reluctance to accept monophyletism (humankind
                      > seen as a single branch of life). And, as we would expect, he
                      > is not keen on the idea of polyphyletism (humankind viewed as
                      > constituting several branches of life). An approximation of his
                      > outlook gets summed up when in the following passage taken
                      > from 'The Phenomenon of Man', he remarks
                      >
                      > 'that if the science of man can say
                      > nothing directly for or against
                      > monogenism (a single initial couple)
                      > it can on the other hand come out
                      > decisively, it seems, in favour of
                      > monophyletism (a single phylum). (23)
                      >
                      > A little reflection, I believe, will be sufficient to confirm us in
                      the
                      > view that polyphyletism is out of sync with Teilhard's overall
                      > outlook. It would be very difficult, as I see it, to envisage him
                      > opposing the notion that humanity constitutes a single branch
                      > of terrestrial life. Within the pages of 'The Phenomenon of Man'
                      > he does grant the possibility that, as some scientists have
                      > argued, humankind may have gotten started more or less
                      > simultaneously 'in several regions on the "anthropoid layer"
                      > of the Pliocene period, thereby following the general mechanics
                      > of all life.' (24) But he hastens to add, that the occurrence of
                      > such start-ups, within a limited time frame (presumably, no
                      > more than a very few thousand years) at several geographic
                      > locations, is not to be regarded as an instance of polyphyletism.
                      > 'This', he tells us,
                      >
                      > 'is not properly speaking "polyphyletism",
                      > because the different points of germination
                      > are located on the same zoological stem,
                      > but it is an extensive mutation of the whole
                      > stem itself.' (25)
                      >
                      > Quite clearly, for the Jesuit paleontologist, all the species of
                      > the human zoological group are part and parcel of the same
                      > biological stem, or branch, or phylum on the tree of life.
                      > Humankind in its entirety constitutes the single and only
                      > living branch, on our planet, which thinks, which forms the
                      > one entity that he calls the noosphere.
                      >
                      >
                      > CONCLUDING REMARKS
                      >
                      > In conclusion, then, I think we are safe in saying that,
                      > concerning humankind, the Jesuit thinker's sympathies
                      > are directed towards polygenism and monophyletism.
                      >
                      > It is interesting to note, as well, what a long shadow is
                      > cast by the traditional Christian doctrine of a Fall from
                      >
                      > grace (by way of an Original Sin) on the part of the first
                      > two human beings on Earth. Even to this day, that
                      > shadow is influencing the way a goodly number of
                      > Christians think about the monogenism and polygenism.
                      >
                      > It is my view that the monogenism vs. polygenism debate
                      > can serve as a reminder of the difficulties we risk falling into
                      > if we accept a scriptural story in too literal a fashion. In
                      > my opinion, Pius XII, no doubt with the best of intentions, fell
                      > into just such a difficulty in regard to the biblical account of
                      > Adam and Eve's Fall from grace. From my perspective at any
                      > rate, this Pontiff, by proceeding as he did, cut himself, and
                      > many persons in his Church, off from a flexibility of thought
                      > that could have been more accommodating vis-a-vis the
                      > polygenetic hypothesis. Speaking just for myself, at this
                      > juncture, I will state that I invariably experience a certain
                      > discomfort when I hear it said that this or that scientific
                      > theory is out of bounds for us on the sole basis that the
                      > said theory is not in harmony with a religious doctrine
                      > that is founded on a more or less literal reading of scripture.
                      >
                      > The conclusion of this submission has now been reached.
                      >
                      >
                      > Notes:
                      >
                      > (17) 'Human Energy', in 'Human Energy' (Collins, 1969), pp.
                      > 128-129.
                      > (18) 'Monogenism and Monophyletism: An Essential
                      > Distinction', in 'Christianity' p. 210 (In footnote # 1).
                      > (19) 'Monogenism and Monophyletism: An Essential
                      > Distinction', in 'Christianity' p. 210.
                      > (20) 'Reflections on Original Sin', in 'Christianity', p. 197.
                      > (21) 'Reflections on Original Sin', in 'Christianity', p. 197.
                      > (22) 'Monogenism and Monophyletism: An Essential
                      > Distinction', in 'Christianity' p. 209.
                      > (23) 'Phenomenon', Book 3, Chapter I, p. 209 (In footnote # 8).
                      > (24) 'Phenomenon', Book 3, Chapter I, p. 207.
                      > (25) 'Phenomenon', Book 3, Chapter I, pp. 207-208.
                      >
                      >
                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




                      As members of this Teilhard eGroup we seek to promote Teilhard's vision of Noospheric planetary consciousness through study, discussion, sharing, mutual support, and compassionate understanding. The closer we come in spiritual awareness to the Alpha and Omega of our creation, the closer we come to one another. "All things that rise, converge."
                      Yahoo! Groups Links
                    • hecd2
                      ... In in-vitro ... Alec should engage brain before fingers - what I meant was, of course, paternal mtDNA can sometimes be detected up to the four and eight
                      Message 10 of 16 , Aug 7, 2004
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In teilhard@yahoogroups.com, "hecd2" <hecd2@y...> wrote:
                        In in-vitro
                        > fertilisation, where a sperm is directly injected into an oocyte,
                        > paternal mtDNA can sometimes be detected up to the four and eight
                        > cell stage of embryogenesis, but has never been detected in infants
                        > born after in-vitro sterilisation.

                        Alec should engage brain before fingers - what I meant was, of
                        course, 'paternal mtDNA can sometimes be detected up to the four and
                        eight cell stage of embryogenesis, but has never been detected in
                        infants born after in-vitro FERTILISATION'.

                        Duh!

                        Alec
                        http://www.evolutionpages.com
                      • hecd2
                        Dear Elizabeth et al, Theology is certainly not my strong suit. I was using the word soul as shorthand for human soul or spirit - that which in Catholic
                        Message 11 of 16 , Aug 7, 2004
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Dear Elizabeth et al,

                          Theology is certainly not my strong suit. I was using the word soul
                          as shorthand for human soul or spirit - that which in Catholic
                          doctrine is unique to humans.

                          Alec
                          http://www.evolutionpages.com

                          --- In teilhard@yahoogroups.com, Elizabeth Hensley <lhensley@m...>
                          wrote:
                          > Hi Alec and all
                          >
                          > Nothing wrong with the science here, but as for the theology...
                          >
                          > Job: 12:10 says every living thing has a "Nephesh."This is the
                          same word that is translated as "soul." in Genesis 2:7. So, not only
                          are there no Humans running around without souls, regardless
                          if "Adam" and "Eve," had brothers and sisters, or not, but no Chimps
                          are running around without souls either. No Neanderthals ever went
                          soulless, and for that matter no skunks, rattlesnakes or flys do
                          either. Which brings up an amusing story. One doubting young man
                          asked C.S. Lewis , "If animals go to Heaven where does God put the
                          mosquitoes?"
                          >
                          > He replyed, "To answer your question on the same level you are
                          asking it, a Heaven for mosquitoes and a Hell for Humans could be
                          very easily combined!"
                          >
                          > So why didn't Noah swat his two while he had the chance? :0)
                          >
                          > Also, though most of Humanities firsts are indeed lost to
                          history, we do know where the first shuttle is. It is named
                          Enterprise and it is sitting in the Smithsonian. They recently had to
                          protect it from Woodpeckers who were pecking holes in it. Sigh! :0((
                          >
                          >
                          > -----Original Message-----
                          > From: hecd2 <hecd2@y...>
                          > Sent: Aug 2, 2004 7:04 PM
                          > To: teilhard@yahoogroups.com
                          > Subject: [teilhard] Re: (4 of 4) Monogenism Vs. Polygenism
                          >
                          > Dear Brian et al,
                          >
                          > Thank you very much for this post - I must say that I agree with
                          > almost everything that you write here. I agree that it would be
                          good
                          > if organised religions were a little less dogmatic and a little
                          more
                          > accepting of new ideas and new findings. Of course the problem
                          with
                          > religious dogma that creeps into pronouncing on natural phenomena
                          is
                          > that it is likely to be proven wrong to the embarassment of the
                          > church. Geocentrism and even the theory of evolution itself fall
                          into
                          > this category.
                          >
                          > There is just one thing I want to comment on and it is the idea of
                          > Teilhard as reported by you thus:
                          >
                          > 'Did that "crowd" have its beginnings monogenetically or
                          > polygenetically? In Teilhard's opinion, as he expresses it in "The
                          > Phenomenon of Man", science, on its own, cannot see back to those
                          > beginnings to pronounce assuredly on the matter, one way or the
                          > other.'
                          >
                          > In other words, it is Teilhard's view, that, although he tends to
                          > support the polygenic view, science cannot authoritatively decide
                          > whether humans had polygenic or monogenic origins. The reason for
                          > this is that Teilhard was speaking with the language of science of
                          > the 1950s - the language of palaeontology and classical
                          evolutionary
                          > theory. The thing that was missing then and that allows us to
                          state
                          > with certainty that a monogenic origin for the human species is not
                          > an option is molecular biology.
                          >
                          > The Phenomenon of Man predates the discovery of the structure of
                          DNA
                          > by several years and predates the now mature science of molecular
                          > biology by more than a decade. Molecular biology, with several
                          lines
                          > of evidence, tells us that monogeny is not an option. In fact the
                          > combination of molecular biology and population genetics tells us
                          > that since the divergence of the human and chimpanzee lineages six
                          > million years ago the human population has not fallen below 10,000
                          > individuals.
                          >
                          > I could post many references to several independent lines of
                          > evidence, but most of them require either expertise in molecular
                          > biology or explanation. So I'll stick with one line of evidence
                          > which can stand as illustration of the others:
                          >
                          > At its absolute simplest, if we consider a highly polymorphic locus
                          > like DRB-1 (that is, a place on the human genome that has many
                          > different forms between different people) in the Human Leucocyte
                          > Antigen complex (a part of the human genome that is very variable
                          > between people) we find 58 human alleles (in other words, at this
                          one
                          > place in the human genome, by sampling the genomes of different
                          > people we have found 58 different forms - there are bound to be
                          many
                          > more as our sample is limited). By carrying out analyses of the pan-
                          > specific alleles (ie the variations at that point in the genome
                          that
                          > we share with chimpanzees and other great apes) we can determine
                          the
                          > likely coalescence dates of allelesn (different alleles diverge
                          from
                          > comon ancestors -the coalescnce date is the point in time in the
                          past
                          > where they diverged), by derivation of a phylogenetic tree from pan-
                          > specific divergence of individual alleles. That indicates that all
                          58
                          > alleles persisted through the last 500,000 years of human
                          evolution.
                          > The 58 alleles coalesce to 44 lineages by 1.7 Myr BP and to 21
                          > lineages by 6 Myr BP (the approximate date of divergence of human
                          and
                          > chimpanzee ancestors). Since anatomically modern humans emerge at
                          > 125,000 years BP and culturally modern humans at 50,000 years BP,
                          and
                          > the human lineage polymorphism at this locus is 58 alleles during
                          > this period, this puts a mathematically logical lower limit on the
                          > minimum human population size during culturally modern human
                          > existence of 29 individuals which in itself destroys the concept of
                          > monogeny.
                          >
                          > Formal population genetics demands a much larger population than 29
                          > individuals for the maintenance of 58 alleles in a situation where
                          > neutral drift and balanced evolution (where heterozygosity has more
                          > fitness than any homozygosity) is occurring, and the conclusion
                          from
                          > these quantitative evolutionary analyses is that the minimum human
                          > population bottleneck was around 10,000 individuals.
                          >
                          > If we take this evidence and add in the many other lines available
                          > from mitochondrial DNA, Y-chromosome DNA, beta-globin,
                          apolipoprotein
                          > C II, analyses of loci other than DRB1 in the major
                          > histocompatibility complex, the conclusion that humans have a
                          > polygenic origin is inescapable. (I am conscious that I have used
                          a
                          > lot of jargon in this post but it's late and I'm tired - if anyone
                          > wants me to try to explain what I have said more clearly, they have
                          > only to ask and I promse to oblige.)
                          >
                          > So how do strict catholics react to this scientific evidence for
                          the
                          > polygenic origins of modern humans?
                          >
                          > The really strict ones say that the science is mistaken because it
                          > conflicts with the dogma and they would rather go with the dogma.
                          > That way lies embarassment. More enlightened ones have an approach
                          > that accepts the biological polygenism of humans: they suggest that
                          > in some generation two of the human ancestors were given souls,
                          > committed original sin and passed their humanity to their
                          > descendants. This is a logically acceptable conclusion but has
                          rather
                          > difficult philosophical and moral implications - this hypothesis
                          > demands that people with and without souls lived together as
                          > partners. Furthermore, it logically admits the possibility that
                          > people with and without souls exist today - a deeply disturbing
                          > hypothesis.
                          >
                          > My view is that the most elegant theological solution to this
                          > conundrum is that we can hold that the fall is something
                          experienced
                          > by a human population emerging into a full understanding of the
                          > consequences of their action - this in no way undermines the
                          doctrine
                          > (and the observation!) of mankind's fallen nature. If the Church is
                          > happy to accept now that the six day creation is a symbolic
                          > description of reality, I can't see why adopting the same approach
                          > with regard to literal Adam and Eve and Original Sin is so
                          difficult.
                          >
                          > By the way science confirms that modern humans are a monophyletic
                          > group (ie arising from a single *group* of closely related
                          ancestors -
                          > in fact modern humans from all over the world are more closely
                          > related that the majority of mammmalian species.) This finding of
                          > molecular biology triumphantly confirms Teilhard's opinions about
                          the
                          > monophyletic origins of modern humans - I can expand on this too if
                          > anyone is interested.
                          >
                          > Alec
                          > http://www.evolutionpages.com
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > --- In teilhard@yahoogroups.com, BCowan6974@a... wrote:
                          > >
                          > > This is part 4 of 4.
                          > >
                          > > If I have understood him aright, the Jesuit paleontologist,
                          around
                          > > the middle of the last century, was saying that he, and others
                          > > involved in the evolutionary sciences, were entertaining serious
                          > > doubts about the ability of human beings to think competently
                          > > about moral issues until after the emergence of Homo sapiens.
                          > > Such doubts do not appear to me to be out of line or far fetched.
                          > > Even after the emergence of Homo sapiens right up into the era
                          > > of recorded history, we find a good deal of muddled (i. e. not
                          very
                          > > competent) ethical thinking. For example, some ancient peoples
                          > > thought that the offering of human sacrifices to their gods was
                          > > pious and worshipful, and Christianity was more than 1,800 years
                          > > old before most Christians began to question the ethical status
                          > > of slavery.
                          > >
                          > > Back in the 1930s and 1940s the emergence of Homo sapiens
                          > > was thought to have occurred 20,000 or 30,000 years ago.
                          > > Now, to be sure, against the backdrop of evolutionary time, a
                          date
                          > > of 20,000 or 30,000 in the past can be seen as a date which,
                          > > figuratively speaking, occurred only yesterday. In a paper
                          > > completed in 1937, Teilhard proposes that it was "only yesterday"
                          > > that human thinking, in any significant fashion, turned away
                          > > from the practical concerns of day-to-day survival and began to
                          > > concentrate, in a more pronounced fashion, on theoretical issues,
                          > > including, I would suspect, issues associated with moral theory.
                          > > My best guess is that when he speaks of "only yesterday" he
                          > > means "only after the appearance of Homo sapiens on the world
                          > > scene". In any event, within the pages of the aforementioned
                          > > 1937 essay, he writes:
                          > >
                          > > 'To discover and know has always been
                          > > a deep tendency of our nature. Can we
                          > > not recognize it already in cave man?
                          > > But it is only yesterday that this
                          > > essential need to know has become
                          > > explicit and changed into a vital
                          > > autonomous function, taking
                          > > precedence in our lives over our
                          > > preoccupations with food and
                          > > drink.' (17)
                          > >
                          > > What I suspect the Jesuit thinker is suggesting here is that at
                          > > least up to the appearance of Homo sapiens (and, indeed,
                          > > probably well into the Homo sapiens era) thought was
                          > > almost entirely preoccupied with concerns related to food,
                          > > drink, shelter, safety and the like. There would, therefore,
                          > > have been little place for theoretical thinking such as that
                          > > involved in a serious pondering of moral issues.
                          > >
                          > > Now, as Teilhard saw it, what the traditional theologians of
                          > > his day were implying was that thinking life, humankind, by
                          > > way of the first human couple, Adam and Eve, appeared on
                          > > our globe at the Homo sapiens stage of human evolutionary
                          > > development. These theologians were proposing to the
                          > > faithful that that the very first human beings were individuals
                          > > whose mental abilities exceeded, by far, the intellectual
                          > > capacities possessed by, say, Java man or Peking man.
                          > >
                          > > Traditional Christian theology, from Teilhard's perspective,
                          > > presents us with a first human couple who are advanced
                          > > enough in their ability to think that they are capable, without
                          > > difficulty, of distinguishing right from wrong. And on the
                          > > basis of this capability, the couple in question possessed
                          > > the intellectual wherewithal to proceed, in an informed and
                          > > consenting fashion, to commit the world's first moral trespass
                          > > which is known as the Original Sin. Most of the Christian
                          > > theologians of the mid twentieth century, in the view of the
                          > > Jesuit thinker, were, at least implicitly, making the claim
                          > > that Adam, the first man, was an individual whose
                          > > intellectual acumen was such as to situate him at the
                          > > Homo sapiens level of evolutionary development. Why? Well,
                          > > only thus would Adam "be capable of bearing the responsibility
                          > > for original sin.' (18) What Teilhard has to say about Adam here,
                          > > can, I believe, also be legitimately extended to include Eve.
                          > >
                          > > So, in the opinion of the Auvergnian Jesuit, what the theologians
                          > > who champion monogenism (as a method of safeguarding the
                          > > biological transmission of the taint of the Original Sin) are, in
                          > > effect doing, whether they realize it or not, is temporally
                          > > situating the first humans at the commencement of the Homo
                          > > sapiens era. Around the middle of the last century, the
                          > > implication of the theological position under discussion was
                          > > that humanity was no more than 20,000 or 30,000 years old.
                          > >
                          > > Not a few scientists of the day (with Teilhard being among them)
                          > > were, of course, finding such an implication questionable
                          > > because it was one which refused to attribute any sort of
                          > > humanity to all those species, in the genus Homo, which
                          > > preceded Homo sapiens, all the way from whatever hominian
                          > > species may have antedated Java man right up to the
                          > > Neanderthaloids. Many scientists, including Père Teilhard
                          > > were not happy over this refusal of at least some measure of
                          > > humanity to those hominians who lived before the dawn of
                          > > Homo sapiens. Science and religion seemed to be heading
                          > > towards an impasse with one another, sixty or seventy years
                          > > ago, over this implication of monogenism which seemed to
                          > > deny any sort of humanity to pre Homo sapiens members of
                          > > the genus Homo.
                          > >
                          > > The Jesuit paleontologist spells out for us his concern over "the
                          > > monogenism of the theologians" when he writes:
                          > >
                          > > ' ... what the monogenism of the
                          > > theologians demands is not only
                          > > the uniqueness of an original
                          > > couple -- but the sudden
                          > > appearance of two individuals fully
                          > > complete in their specific
                          > > development from the very first
                          > > moment. At the very least, the Adam
                          > > of the theologians must have been
                          > > from the outset a Homo sapiens.' (19)
                          > >
                          > > I believe it is fair to say that Teilhard would have been more
                          > > comfortable had his Church been open to the possibility of
                          > > viewing the doctrine of Original Sin in a symbolic or allegorical
                          > > light. If the Catholic Communion of the day had been willing to
                          > > approach the story of humankind's first sin in a non-literalist
                          > > fashion, then that Communion could have been much more
                          > > flexible apropos of monogenism vs. polygenism.
                          > >
                          > > Certainly, it seems to be the case that the Jesuit thinker and
                          > > Pope Pius XII were leaning in opposite directions when it came
                          > > to Original Sin and monogenism. The Auvergnian paleontologist
                          > > was favourably disposed to polygenism because it presented
                          > > itself to him as more in keeping with evolutionary science than
                          > > did monogenism, and because he saw no need to safeguard a
                          > > theological theory which asserts the biological transmission,
                          > > to all people, of the debasing taint of a sin committed by the
                          > > first human couple. Pius XII, on the other hand, was resolutely
                          > > unwilling to abandon monogenism because, on the basis of
                          > > his rather literalist religious faith, the Pontiff considered it
                          > his
                          > > duty to defend the traditional theological dogma that Adam
                          > > and Eve biologically, through a direct line of descent, passed
                          > > along, to all of humanity, the noxious effects of their sin, the
                          > > first sin in the world.
                          > >
                          > > In accounting for the evolutionary emergence of humanity, then,
                          > > Teilhard de Chardin (unlike Pius XII) would have been quite
                          > > content, as he tells us in a 1947 paper, 'to substitute a
                          > > collective "matrix" and a collective heredity for the womb of our
                          > > mother Eve.' (20) In the opinion of the French Jesuit, such a
                          > > substitution would have had the salutary effect of releasing
                          > > Christians 'from the necessity (progressively more unacceptable)
                          > > of having, illogically, to derive the whole human race from a
                          > > single couple.' (21) I do not believe it would be straying from
                          the
                          > > truth to say that Teilhard went to his grave in the hope that the
                          > > day would eventually dawn when his Church would make the
                          > > substitution in question.
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > A NOTE CONCERNING MONOPHYLETISM AND
                          > > POLYPHYLETISM
                          > >
                          > > Up to now this submission has concerned itself exclusively with
                          > > the monogenism vs. polygenism debate and with Teilhard's
                          > > stance vis-a-vis that debate. As we have already noted, in 1950,
                          > > the Jesuit paleontologist was prompted, by Pope Pius XII's
                          > > encyclical, 'Humani Generis' to write a short essay entitled
                          > > 'Monogenism and Monophyletism: An Essential Distinction'.
                          > > In his essay Père Teilhard mentions "monophyletism" and
                          > > "polyphyletism" and cautions us not to confuse these with
                          > > "monogenism" and "polygenism". To assist us in avoiding any
                          > > such confusion, he briefly sums up the definitions of the four
                          > > terms as follows.
                          > >
                          > > 'Mono- and-poly-genism: one or a
                          > > number of original human couples.
                          > >
                          > > Mono- and poly-phyletism: one or a
                          > > number of branches (or phyla) at the
                          > > foundation of mankind.' (22)
                          > >
                          > > Now, as we have already observed, the Jesuit paleontologist,
                          > > although he does not deny outright the possibility of a
                          > > single human couple as the biological source of all of
                          > > humankind, has a tendency to shy away from monogenism.
                          > > He inclines rather to polygenism, a hypothesis which postulates
                          > > more than one couple at humanity's origins. However, he
                          > > manifests no reluctance to accept monophyletism (humankind
                          > > seen as a single branch of life). And, as we would expect, he
                          > > is not keen on the idea of polyphyletism (humankind viewed as
                          > > constituting several branches of life). An approximation of his
                          > > outlook gets summed up when in the following passage taken
                          > > from 'The Phenomenon of Man', he remarks
                          > >
                          > > 'that if the science of man can say
                          > > nothing directly for or against
                          > > monogenism (a single initial couple)
                          > > it can on the other hand come out
                          > > decisively, it seems, in favour of
                          > > monophyletism (a single phylum). (23)
                          > >
                          > > A little reflection, I believe, will be sufficient to confirm us
                          in
                          > the
                          > > view that polyphyletism is out of sync with Teilhard's overall
                          > > outlook. It would be very difficult, as I see it, to envisage him
                          > > opposing the notion that humanity constitutes a single branch
                          > > of terrestrial life. Within the pages of 'The Phenomenon of Man'
                          > > he does grant the possibility that, as some scientists have
                          > > argued, humankind may have gotten started more or less
                          > > simultaneously 'in several regions on the "anthropoid layer"
                          > > of the Pliocene period, thereby following the general mechanics
                          > > of all life.' (24) But he hastens to add, that the occurrence of
                          > > such start-ups, within a limited time frame (presumably, no
                          > > more than a very few thousand years) at several geographic
                          > > locations, is not to be regarded as an instance of polyphyletism.
                          > > 'This', he tells us,
                          > >
                          > > 'is not properly speaking "polyphyletism",
                          > > because the different points of germination
                          > > are located on the same zoological stem,
                          > > but it is an extensive mutation of the whole
                          > > stem itself.' (25)
                          > >
                          > > Quite clearly, for the Jesuit paleontologist, all the species of
                          > > the human zoological group are part and parcel of the same
                          > > biological stem, or branch, or phylum on the tree of life.
                          > > Humankind in its entirety constitutes the single and only
                          > > living branch, on our planet, which thinks, which forms the
                          > > one entity that he calls the noosphere.
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > CONCLUDING REMARKS
                          > >
                          > > In conclusion, then, I think we are safe in saying that,
                          > > concerning humankind, the Jesuit thinker's sympathies
                          > > are directed towards polygenism and monophyletism.
                          > >
                          > > It is interesting to note, as well, what a long shadow is
                          > > cast by the traditional Christian doctrine of a Fall from
                          > >
                          > > grace (by way of an Original Sin) on the part of the first
                          > > two human beings on Earth. Even to this day, that
                          > > shadow is influencing the way a goodly number of
                          > > Christians think about the monogenism and polygenism.
                          > >
                          > > It is my view that the monogenism vs. polygenism debate
                          > > can serve as a reminder of the difficulties we risk falling into
                          > > if we accept a scriptural story in too literal a fashion. In
                          > > my opinion, Pius XII, no doubt with the best of intentions, fell
                          > > into just such a difficulty in regard to the biblical account of
                          > > Adam and Eve's Fall from grace. From my perspective at any
                          > > rate, this Pontiff, by proceeding as he did, cut himself, and
                          > > many persons in his Church, off from a flexibility of thought
                          > > that could have been more accommodating vis-a-vis the
                          > > polygenetic hypothesis. Speaking just for myself, at this
                          > > juncture, I will state that I invariably experience a certain
                          > > discomfort when I hear it said that this or that scientific
                          > > theory is out of bounds for us on the sole basis that the
                          > > said theory is not in harmony with a religious doctrine
                          > > that is founded on a more or less literal reading of scripture.
                          > >
                          > > The conclusion of this submission has now been reached.
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > Notes:
                          > >
                          > > (17) 'Human Energy', in 'Human Energy' (Collins, 1969), pp.
                          > > 128-129.
                          > > (18) 'Monogenism and Monophyletism: An Essential
                          > > Distinction', in 'Christianity' p. 210 (In footnote # 1).
                          > > (19) 'Monogenism and Monophyletism: An Essential
                          > > Distinction', in 'Christianity' p. 210.
                          > > (20) 'Reflections on Original Sin', in 'Christianity', p. 197.
                          > > (21) 'Reflections on Original Sin', in 'Christianity', p. 197.
                          > > (22) 'Monogenism and Monophyletism: An Essential
                          > > Distinction', in 'Christianity' p. 209.
                          > > (23) 'Phenomenon', Book 3, Chapter I, p. 209 (In footnote # 8).
                          > > (24) 'Phenomenon', Book 3, Chapter I, p. 207.
                          > > (25) 'Phenomenon', Book 3, Chapter I, pp. 207-208.
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > As members of this Teilhard eGroup we seek to promote Teilhard's
                          vision of Noospheric planetary consciousness through study,
                          discussion, sharing, mutual support, and compassionate understanding.
                          The closer we come in spiritual awareness to the Alpha and Omega of
                          our creation, the closer we come to one another. "All things that
                          rise, converge."
                          > Yahoo! Groups Links
                        • Janice B. Paulsen
                          Hi Liz, I just loved this post :-) ! Bless you, Janice ... -- Janice B. Paulsen, Webmaster - Le quartier français du village planétaire:
                          Message 12 of 16 , Aug 7, 2004
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Hi Liz,
                            I just loved this post :-) !
                            Bless you,
                            Janice

                            Elizabeth Hensley wrote:

                            > Hi Alec and all
                            >
                            > Nothing wrong with the science here, but as for the theology...
                            >
                            > Job: 12:10 says every living thing has a "Nephesh."This is the same
                            > word that is translated as "soul." in Genesis 2:7. So, not only are
                            > there no Humans running around without souls, regardless if "Adam" and
                            > "Eve," had brothers and sisters, or not, but no Chimps are running
                            > around without souls either. No Neanderthals ever went soulless, and
                            > for that matter no skunks, rattlesnakes or flys do either. Which
                            > brings up an amusing story. One doubting young man asked C.S. Lewis ,
                            > "If animals go to Heaven where does God put the mosquitoes?"
                            >
                            > He replyed, "To answer your question on the same level you are
                            > asking it, a Heaven for mosquitoes and a Hell for Humans could be very
                            > easily combined!"
                            >
                            > So why didn't Noah swat his two while he had the chance? :0)
                            >
                            > Also, though most of Humanities firsts are indeed lost to history,
                            > we do know where the first shuttle is. It is named Enterprise and it
                            > is sitting in the Smithsonian. They recently had to protect it from
                            > Woodpeckers who were pecking holes in it. Sigh! :0((
                            >
                            >
                            > -----Original Message-----
                            > From: hecd2 <hecd2@...>
                            > Sent: Aug 2, 2004 7:04 PM
                            > To: teilhard@yahoogroups.com
                            > Subject: [teilhard] Re: (4 of 4) Monogenism Vs. Polygenism
                            >
                            > Dear Brian et al,
                            >
                            > Thank you very much for this post - I must say that I agree with
                            > almost everything that you write here. I agree that it would be good
                            > if organised religions were a little less dogmatic and a little more
                            > accepting of new ideas and new findings. Of course the problem with
                            > religious dogma that creeps into pronouncing on natural phenomena is
                            > that it is likely to be proven wrong to the embarassment of the
                            > church. Geocentrism and even the theory of evolution itself fall into
                            > this category.
                            >
                            > There is just one thing I want to comment on and it is the idea of
                            > Teilhard as reported by you thus:
                            >
                            > 'Did that "crowd" have its beginnings monogenetically or
                            > polygenetically? In Teilhard's opinion, as he expresses it in "The
                            > Phenomenon of Man", science, on its own, cannot see back to those
                            > beginnings to pronounce assuredly on the matter, one way or the
                            > other.'
                            >
                            > In other words, it is Teilhard's view, that, although he tends to
                            > support the polygenic view, science cannot authoritatively decide
                            > whether humans had polygenic or monogenic origins. The reason for
                            > this is that Teilhard was speaking with the language of science of
                            > the 1950s - the language of palaeontology and classical evolutionary
                            > theory. The thing that was missing then and that allows us to state
                            > with certainty that a monogenic origin for the human species is not
                            > an option is molecular biology.
                            >
                            > The Phenomenon of Man predates the discovery of the structure of DNA
                            > by several years and predates the now mature science of molecular
                            > biology by more than a decade. Molecular biology, with several lines
                            > of evidence, tells us that monogeny is not an option. In fact the
                            > combination of molecular biology and population genetics tells us
                            > that since the divergence of the human and chimpanzee lineages six
                            > million years ago the human population has not fallen below 10,000
                            > individuals.
                            >
                            > I could post many references to several independent lines of
                            > evidence, but most of them require either expertise in molecular
                            > biology or explanation. So I'll stick with one line of evidence
                            > which can stand as illustration of the others:
                            >
                            > At its absolute simplest, if we consider a highly polymorphic locus
                            > like DRB-1 (that is, a place on the human genome that has many
                            > different forms between different people) in the Human Leucocyte
                            > Antigen complex (a part of the human genome that is very variable
                            > between people) we find 58 human alleles (in other words, at this one
                            > place in the human genome, by sampling the genomes of different
                            > people we have found 58 different forms - there are bound to be many
                            > more as our sample is limited). By carrying out analyses of the pan-
                            > specific alleles (ie the variations at that point in the genome that
                            > we share with chimpanzees and other great apes) we can determine the
                            > likely coalescence dates of allelesn (different alleles diverge from
                            > comon ancestors -the coalescnce date is the point in time in the past
                            > where they diverged), by derivation of a phylogenetic tree from pan-
                            > specific divergence of individual alleles. That indicates that all 58
                            > alleles persisted through the last 500,000 years of human evolution.
                            > The 58 alleles coalesce to 44 lineages by 1.7 Myr BP and to 21
                            > lineages by 6 Myr BP (the approximate date of divergence of human and
                            > chimpanzee ancestors). Since anatomically modern humans emerge at
                            > 125,000 years BP and culturally modern humans at 50,000 years BP, and
                            > the human lineage polymorphism at this locus is 58 alleles during
                            > this period, this puts a mathematically logical lower limit on the
                            > minimum human population size during culturally modern human
                            > existence of 29 individuals which in itself destroys the concept of
                            > monogeny.
                            >
                            > Formal population genetics demands a much larger population than 29
                            > individuals for the maintenance of 58 alleles in a situation where
                            > neutral drift and balanced evolution (where heterozygosity has more
                            > fitness than any homozygosity) is occurring, and the conclusion from
                            > these quantitative evolutionary analyses is that the minimum human
                            > population bottleneck was around 10,000 individuals.
                            >
                            > If we take this evidence and add in the many other lines available
                            > from mitochondrial DNA, Y-chromosome DNA, beta-globin, apolipoprotein
                            > C II, analyses of loci other than DRB1 in the major
                            > histocompatibility complex, the conclusion that humans have a
                            > polygenic origin is inescapable. (I am conscious that I have used a
                            > lot of jargon in this post but it's late and I'm tired - if anyone
                            > wants me to try to explain what I have said more clearly, they have
                            > only to ask and I promse to oblige.)
                            >
                            > So how do strict catholics react to this scientific evidence for the
                            > polygenic origins of modern humans?
                            >
                            > The really strict ones say that the science is mistaken because it
                            > conflicts with the dogma and they would rather go with the dogma.
                            > That way lies embarassment. More enlightened ones have an approach
                            > that accepts the biological polygenism of humans: they suggest that
                            > in some generation two of the human ancestors were given souls,
                            > committed original sin and passed their humanity to their
                            > descendants. This is a logically acceptable conclusion but has rather
                            > difficult philosophical and moral implications - this hypothesis
                            > demands that people with and without souls lived together as
                            > partners. Furthermore, it logically admits the possibility that
                            > people with and without souls exist today - a deeply disturbing
                            > hypothesis.
                            >
                            > My view is that the most elegant theological solution to this
                            > conundrum is that we can hold that the fall is something experienced
                            > by a human population emerging into a full understanding of the
                            > consequences of their action - this in no way undermines the doctrine
                            > (and the observation!) of mankind's fallen nature. If the Church is
                            > happy to accept now that the six day creation is a symbolic
                            > description of reality, I can't see why adopting the same approach
                            > with regard to literal Adam and Eve and Original Sin is so difficult.
                            >
                            > By the way science confirms that modern humans are a monophyletic
                            > group (ie arising from a single *group* of closely related ancestors -
                            > in fact modern humans from all over the world are more closely
                            > related that the majority of mammmalian species.) This finding of
                            > molecular biology triumphantly confirms Teilhard's opinions about the
                            > monophyletic origins of modern humans - I can expand on this too if
                            > anyone is interested.
                            >
                            > Alec
                            > http://www.evolutionpages.com

                            --
                            Janice B. Paulsen,
                            Webmaster - Le quartier français du village planétaire:
                            http://www.richmond.edu/~jpaulsen/gvfrench.html
                            http://oncampus.richmond.edu/~jpaulsen/gvfrench.html
                            jpaulsen@... | http://www.richmond.edu/~jpaulsen/
                            Former MMLangLab Director, Univ Richmond VA, USA
                            Ancien professeur de français
                            Manager - Teilhard de Chardin eGroup :
                            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teilhard/
                            Webmaster - SPC Online : http://salisburypc.org/
                            --
                          • isamac2004
                            Hello Alec, Bill Cranston was the first person to bring to our attention the Appleton-Weber translation of The Human Phenomenon on May 24, 2004 in message no.
                            Message 13 of 16 , Sep 9, 2007
                            View Source
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Hello Alec,

                              Bill Cranston was the first person to bring to our attention
                              the Appleton-Weber translation of The Human Phenomenon on
                              May 24, 2004 in message no. 6644 under the subject "Re: Man's
                              Place in Nature". Strickly out of curiosity did I wish to review
                              the book. I am glad we both discussed it privately and
                              agreed it wasn't really a science book. I do recollect you
                              mentioning tossing it out and noted that elsewhere on the
                              Net. And I'm aware that you didn't further pursue discussing
                              the book with the group after your post below which would be
                              an indicator for the group that you didn't fully endorse it.
                              Please correct me if I am wrong. I kept the book but cringe
                              everytime I read on page 261 of the book, "It was there the
                              Dancing Sorcerer Teilhard refers to was found." Yuck! In my
                              opinion there are many errors within the book.

                              Thank you, Alec, you too have done many a thing for me!
                              I love SCIENCE to boot! Let's also remember, Adam and Eve and
                              Original sin have been "history" for years now as I have
                              pronounced already on the Net.:-)

                              with Love and continued peace of mind~

                              Mary Marguerite who keeps her promises. I'll always love God
                              for both of us.

                              (p.s. Janice, you mention below, "Thanks also to Brian, Mary
                              Marguerite, Judy, and Beatrix for their supportive and/or
                              enlightening posts to to this thread." Well, er, hum, we (Brian,
                              me, Judy, and Beatrix aren't on this thread! (tee hee) I will be
                              once this post shows up. And since my eyesight is poor I have
                              gone through my yahoo email to post directly online. Thanks and love
                              to you, dear Janice.)
                              --- In teilhard@yahoogroups.com, "hecd2" <hecd2@...> wrote on August
                              2, 2004 in message #7109:

                              Janice, thank you so much for your appreciation. You make
                              the effort worthwhile.

                              Well, I took delivery of my Appleton-Weber translation of The Human
                              Phenomenon about a week ago - I am yet to read it from cover to
                              cover. I miss the understatement of the Bernard Wall translation (he
                              kept his contribution almost totally under covers and gave all the
                              credit to Teilhard) whereas this new translation is touted on Amazon
                              under the key author 'Sarah Appleton-Weber'. I also lament the fact
                              that the Wall translation has a genuinely heavyweight introducton by
                              Julian Huxley and this is replaced in the newer translation by the
                              very lightweight Brian Swimme. However the Teilhard text itself
                              translated seems to be much clearer and nearer to the spirit of the
                              original.

                              The translation has been available for 4 or 5 years but only in
                              hardcover at an absolutely outrageous price. Its recent renaissance
                              is almost entirely due to the publication of the paperback last year
                              at a reasonable price.

                              I can't be 100% sure of this but it's my recollection that Mary
                              Marguerite first brought this to the attention of the list. If I am
                              wrong, I know that Bill will forgive me if I am wrong, but it is to
                              Mary Marguerite's very constructive campaign on behalf of the new
                              translation that I owe my determination to buy and study the new
                              translation.

                              Thank you, Mary, this is a good thing that you have done for me.

                              Alec
                              http://www.evolutionpages.com

                              > --- In teilhard@yahoogroups.com, "Janice B. Paulsen"
                              <jpaulsen@r...>
                              > wrote:
                              > > Thanks, Alec, for this splendid scientific confirmation :-) !
                              > > I have noted that the Genesis story of creation is considered
                              > as "myth"
                              > > in documents produced by most non-fundamentalist Protestant
                              > churches today.
                              > > Thanks also to Brian, Mary Marguerite, Judy, and Beatrix for
                              their
                              > > supportive and/or enlightening posts to to this thread.
                              > > And HOORAY for all our Teilhardians who have purchased and are in
                              > the
                              > > process of reading Sarah-Appleton Weber's new translation of The
                              > Human
                              > > Phenomenon. The notes themselves are worth the reading! I
                              believe
                              > the
                              > > original credit goes to Bill Cranston who first alerted our list
                              to
                              > this
                              > > remarkable new translation!
                              > > Bless you all,
                              > > Janice
                              > >
                              > > hecd2 wrote:
                              > >
                              > > > Dear Brian et al,
                              > > >
                              > > > Thank you very much for this post - I must say that I agree with
                              > > > almost everything that you write here. I agree that it would be
                              > good
                              > > > if organised religions were a little less dogmatic and a little
                              > more
                              > > > accepting of new ideas and new findings. Of course the problem
                              > with
                              > > > religious dogma that creeps into pronouncing on natural
                              phenomena
                              > is
                              > > > that it is likely to be proven wrong to the embarassment of the
                              > > > church. Geocentrism and even the theory of evolution itself
                              fall
                              > into
                              > > > this category.
                              > > >
                              > > > There is just one thing I want to comment on and it is the idea
                              of
                              > > > Teilhard as reported by you thus:
                              > > >
                              > > > 'Did that "crowd" have its beginnings monogenetically or
                              > > > polygenetically? In Teilhard's opinion, as he expresses it
                              in "The
                              > > > Phenomenon of Man", science, on its own, cannot see back to
                              those
                              > > > beginnings to pronounce assuredly on the matter, one way or the
                              > > > other.'
                              > > >
                              > > > In other words, it is Teilhard's view, that, although he tends
                              to
                              > > > support the polygenic view, science cannot authoritatively
                              decide
                              > > > whether humans had polygenic or monogenic origins. The reason
                              for
                              > > > this is that Teilhard was speaking with the language of science
                              of
                              > > > the 1950s - the language of palaeontology and classical
                              > evolutionary
                              > > > theory. The thing that was missing then and that allows us to
                              > state
                              > > > with certainty that a monogenic origin for the human species is
                              > not
                              > > > an option is molecular biology.
                              > > >
                              > > > The Phenomenon of Man predates the discovery of the structure
                              of
                              > DNA
                              > > > by several years and predates the now mature science of
                              molecular
                              > > > biology by more than a decade. Molecular biology, with several
                              > lines
                              > > > of evidence, tells us that monogeny is not an option. In fact
                              the
                              > > > combination of molecular biology and population genetics tells
                              us
                              > > > that since the divergence of the human and chimpanzee lineages
                              six
                              > > > million years ago the human population has not fallen below
                              10,000
                              > > > individuals.
                              > > >
                              > > > I could post many references to several independent lines of
                              > > > evidence, but most of them require either expertise in molecular
                              > > > biology or explanation. So I'll stick with one line of evidence
                              > > > which can stand as illustration of the others:
                              > > >
                              > > > At its absolute simplest, if we consider a highly polymorphic
                              > locus
                              > > > like DRB-1 (that is, a place on the human genome that has many
                              > > > different forms between different people) in the Human Leucocyte
                              > > > Antigen complex (a part of the human genome that is very
                              variable
                              > > > between people) we find 58 human alleles (in other words, at
                              this
                              > one
                              > > > place in the human genome, by sampling the genomes of different
                              > > > people we have found 58 different forms - there are bound to be
                              > many
                              > > > more as our sample is limited). By carrying out analyses of the
                              > pan-
                              > > > specific alleles (ie the variations at that point in the genome
                              > that
                              > > > we share with chimpanzees and other great apes) we can
                              determine
                              > the
                              > > > likely coalescence dates of allelesn (different alleles diverge
                              > from
                              > > > comon ancestors -the coalescnce date is the point in time in
                              the
                              > past
                              > > > where they diverged), by derivation of a phylogenetic tree from
                              > pan-
                              > > > specific divergence of individual alleles. That indicates that
                              > all 58
                              > > > alleles persisted through the last 500,000 years of human
                              > evolution.
                              > > > The 58 alleles coalesce to 44 lineages by 1.7 Myr BP and to 21
                              > > > lineages by 6 Myr BP (the approximate date of divergence of
                              human
                              > and
                              > > > chimpanzee ancestors). Since anatomically modern humans emerge
                              at
                              > > > 125,000 years BP and culturally modern humans at 50,000 years
                              BP,
                              > and
                              > > > the human lineage polymorphism at this locus is 58 alleles
                              during
                              > > > this period, this puts a mathematically logical lower limit on
                              the
                              > > > minimum human population size during culturally modern human
                              > > > existence of 29 individuals which in itself destroys the
                              concept
                              > of
                              > > > monogeny.
                              > > >
                              > > > Formal population genetics demands a much larger population
                              than
                              > 29
                              > > > individuals for the maintenance of 58 alleles in a situation
                              where
                              > > > neutral drift and balanced evolution (where heterozygosity has
                              > more
                              > > > fitness than any homozygosity) is occurring, and the conclusion
                              > from
                              > > > these quantitative evolutionary analyses is that the minimum
                              human
                              > > > population bottleneck was around 10,000 individuals.
                              > > >
                              > > > If we take this evidence and add in the many other lines
                              available
                              > > > from mitochondrial DNA, Y-chromosome DNA, beta-globin,
                              > apolipoprotein
                              > > > C II, analyses of loci other than DRB1 in the major
                              > > > histocompatibility complex, the conclusion that humans have a
                              > > > polygenic origin is inescapable. (I am conscious that I have
                              > used a
                              > > > lot of jargon in this post but it's late and I'm tired - if
                              anyone
                              > > > wants me to try to explain what I have said more clearly, they
                              > have
                              > > > only to ask and I promse to oblige.)
                              > > >
                              > > > So how do strict catholics react to this scientific evidence
                              for
                              > the
                              > > > polygenic origins of modern humans?
                              > > >
                              > > > The really strict ones say that the science is mistaken because
                              it
                              > > > conflicts with the dogma and they would rather go with the
                              dogma.
                              > > > That way lies embarassment. More enlightened ones have an
                              approach
                              > > > that accepts the biological polygenism of humans: they suggest
                              > that
                              > > > in some generation two of the human ancestors were given souls,
                              > > > committed original sin and passed their humanity to their
                              > > > descendants. This is a logically acceptable conclusion but has
                              > rather
                              > > > difficult philosophical and moral implications - this hypothesis
                              > > > demands that people with and without souls lived together as
                              > > > partners. Furthermore, it logically admits the possibility that
                              > > > people with and without souls exist today - a deeply disturbing
                              > > > hypothesis.
                              > > >
                              > > > My view is that the most elegant theological solution to this
                              > > > conundrum is that we can hold that the fall is something
                              > experienced
                              > > > by a human population emerging into a full understanding of the
                              > > > consequences of their action - this in no way undermines the
                              > doctrine
                              > > > (and the observation!) of mankind's fallen nature. If the
                              Church
                              > is
                              > > > happy to accept now that the six day creation is a symbolic
                              > > > description of reality, I can't see why adopting the same
                              approach
                              > > > with regard to literal Adam and Eve and Original Sin is so
                              > difficult.
                              > > >
                              > > > By the way science confirms that modern humans are a
                              monophyletic
                              > > > group (ie arising from a single *group* of closely related
                              > ancestors -
                              > > > in fact modern humans from all over the world are more closely
                              > > > related that the majority of mammmalian species.) This finding
                              of
                              > > > molecular biology triumphantly confirms Teilhard's opinions
                              about
                              > the
                              > > > monophyletic origins of modern humans - I can expand on this
                              too
                              > if
                              > > > anyone is interested.
                              > > >
                              > > > Alec
                              > > > http://www.evolutionpages.com
                              > > >
                              > > --
                              > > Janice B. Paulsen,
                              > > Webmaster - Le quartier français du village planétaire:
                              > > http://www.richmond.edu/~jpaulsen/gvfrench.html
                              > > http://oncampus.richmond.edu/~jpaulsen/gvfrench.html
                              > > jpaulsen@r... | http://www.richmond.edu/~jpaulsen/
                              > > Former MMLangLab Director, Univ Richmond VA, USA
                              > > Ancien professeur de français
                              > > Manager - Teilhard de Chardin eGroup :
                              > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teilhard/
                              > > Webmaster - SPC Online : http://salisburypc.org/
                              > > --
                              >
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.