But, as others have pointed out, you either seem to misunderstand the terms, or misunderstand the implications of what Biblical monogenism could mean (and instead, simply dig in your heels and repeat “one man. one woman. no other non-human hominids.”)
- Hylomorphism is that things are a body/soul composite. To not have a soul would be against the notion of hylomorphism.
Agreed. And therefore, a hominid without a soul (e.g., a pre-Adam hominid) would not be a human. This would not be “against hylomorphism.”
- It is as absurd as Biblical Monogenism to assert that no matter how we originated, we lost a very large amount of humanity somewhere along the line and all man now descend from that.
Who ever said that “we lost a very large amount of humanity somewhere”? I certainly didn’t!
In fact, if by ‘human’ we mean ‘hominid with a soul’, then the assertion is exactly the opposite of what you bemoan here: humanity wasn’t ‘lost’ at the ensoulment of Adam and Eve – it was gained! But, I suppose, what you’re trying to say is that you perceive my argument as asserting that there was a huge die-off of unensouled hominids? That, too, I never claimed.
Yet, looking at it from a Darwinian framework, one could make that argument, don’t you think? If certain features of animals give them advantages over other animals, such that these advantages favor the subset (i.e., certain camouflage, or other offensive or defensive abilities, etc), then that subset is the one that benefits from the notion known as “survival of the fittest.” Would anyone suggest that the presence of a soul – the defining feature of what we now call ‘humanity’ – is not a huge advantage over not having a soul?
If that is true, then the only question remaining is how the population of humans (NB: humans, not hominids) grew. Many have theorized about this; many possibilities exist.