Talk:Polygenism

definition

The definition of poly/mono is blurred, as what some, may have mentioned as polygenesis some time ago, would be considered monogenesis today. Neanderthal-Human intermixture, could be considered partially polygenetic, although it is monogenetic much longer ago. Pure-poly would suggest that the different people on earth were created by various aliens, or that life evolved on completely separate paths from the primordial beginnings. semi-poly would be that we have distant origins but have thus taken different paths, including neanderthals and their reintegration. I mean, there is likely some definition confusion here? 27.33.119.145 (talk) 06:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

poly mono

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

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 (talk • contribs) 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

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?

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)

Polygenism vs. polyphyletic evolution of race

Both are different. Yes, I know there is a tiny "evolutionary polygenism" section, but it is poorly written and mostly false/lies (crap like Haeckel being a polygenist when he wasn't). See Polyphyletic evolution theories of human races. also since there is an idiot deleting my contributions see an archive: dead link] Paleoresearcher (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Infinite Gardens of Eden

The issue with the "infinite Gardens of Eden" notion that some of you are trying to attribute to Bruno is that he posited the infinite Gardens of Eden as a thought experiment, so we shouldn't claim that he actually held that there WERE an infinite number of gardens in reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theguide42 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Has a 20th century Polygenist evolution section been deleted?

A google search on Coone Polygenics brought up this Wikipedia polygenics page with this text showing in snippet view "The Races of Europe (Coon, 1939) · An Investigation of Global Policy with the ..." - apparently from Google cache. However currently Coon doesn't appear on this page here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygenism and the Polygenist evolution section ends with the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. It appears as if the contents of the section after that have been deleted. There are still articles about him https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carleton_S._Coon and his book https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Races_of_Europe_(Coon_book)

Races as different species

The quote by Voltaire: "The negro race is a species of men different from ours as the breed of spaniels is from that of greyhounds."

It is true that Africans and Europeans differ by a large enough genetic distance that they would be considered different species by the same standards applied to every other type of animal. The reason they are not considered different species is clearly political. Why is it important one way or the other? For one, outbreeding depression in mixed-race children is real. People might want to be aware of the consequences of breeding with someone from a different species, but as it stands the reality of these consequences is hidden from public view for political reasons to encourage a practice that knowingly results in birth defects. The people suppressing this reality should be liable for the medical expenses of children born to mixed-race parents, but they are not. The lack of ethics is astounding. 2406:3100:1018:2:5A:0:1299:3D35 (talk) 08:29, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Unsupported speculation, lacks the sourcing required for any changes and fails to propose article improvements: see WP:TALK#USE. . . dave souza, talk 09:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)