Talk:Polygenism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Anthropology (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Catholicism (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Catholicism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
 

poly mono[edit]

Earlier poly is today mono, as research brings more data we can see that today poly may be tomorrow mono. To see that, some knowledge is required which is already linked and referenced. re: [1]. Perhaps 'this it nothing' = obvious facts, but those sentences may be helpful for some wiki e ditors who crossed my e dids. 24.15.124.2 (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't reply earlier, but if polygenesis means anything, it means that the human races came into existence separately. There have been theories of creationist polygenism, according to which the human races were created ex nihilo as distinct and separate "kinds", and there have also been theories of evolutionary polygenism, according to which the various human races have evolved from non-human primates independently on parallel but separate paths. I'm not sure how your remarks really clarified anything... AnonMoos (talk) 02:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Teilhard and Polygenism[edit]

I am surprised to see the allegation that Teilhard believed in polygenism. I would be much more comfortable with a direct citation from his works, rather than some secondary source. I do not recall any such commitment on his part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlosChio (talkcontribs) 07:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Teilhard was a polygenist evolutionist, he did not believe in a literal Adam and Eve, go on any search engine and type in "Teilhard polygenism" you would get loads of sources. 86.10.119.131 (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment[edit]

Maybe I'm just unfamiliar with this subject and other literature on it.. but reading this article, it struck me as very racist. Seems like a large part of it has the need to emphasize over and over again the supposed superiority of whites and inferiority of 'negroes'. -- œ 20:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The article may seem racist because many of the polygenists were. However, not all were. Alfred Russell Wallace and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin were patently non-racist polygenists who strongly protested against discrimination. I think the idea of stereotyping all polygenists as racists is a symptom of phanatic belief in the "selfish gene" bogus.79.138.145.211 (talk) 14:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Why is Co-Adamism done in CamelCase without a hyphen?[edit]

It seems peculiar and is uncommon elsewhere on the Web. The most common spellings are "co-Adamism" and "Coadamism," but the latter seems easy to confuse with the Vietnamese religion of Caodaism. I suggest that we need the hyphen. — ℜob C. alias ÀLAROB 20:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)