There Will be Repercussions

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

This entry was posted on Thursday, September 20th, 2007 at 11:06 pm and is filed under The Rabbit. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. The trackback link is: http://telicthoughts.com/there-will-be-repercussions/trackback/

218 Responses to “There Will be Repercussions”

jb Says:
September 21st, 2007 at 8:25 am
I've got another one for you I just stumbled across. Of course I thought "Mike Gene would like this" when I saw it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Comment by jb — September 21, 2007 @ 8:25 am

Doug Says:
September 21st, 2007 at 9:03 am
One of my favorite boxers, Anthony Mundine, might have to retire from boxing.
Take this as an important lesson - Never Lick Your Contacts! …. and then put them back in your eye.

Comment by Doug — September 21, 2007 @ 9:03 am

kornbelt888 Says:
September 21st, 2007 at 6:15 pm
Those things taste real good on toast

Comment by kornbelt888 — September 21, 2007 @ 6:15 pm

MikeGene Says:
September 21st, 2007 at 11:13 pm
Hi jb,

Nice find - I'll save it for Bunny Fright Week sometime near the end of, say, October.

Comment by MikeGene — September 21, 2007 @ 11:13 pm

Thought Provoker Says:
September 22nd, 2007 at 8:23 pm
Thank You Mike for the open thread.

Hi Stunney,

At the beginning of this week you accepted my challenge. I want to carry through on this if you are around. However, it has been a tough week for me. So I will wait to hear from you again before I respond. I might be a little more… err… um… tactful later.

You wrote…

I'm game.

According to Ockham (as in William, the actual man), God is the sole necessary reality.

Of course, his Razor principle doesn't say per se anything about whether God makes, or does not make, an empirical difference.

But now, suppose physics cannot account for some phenomena, such as there being laws of physics in the first place, or there being a real universe that instantiates them, or there being rational minds capable of doing physics, or there being moral experience, or for the laws of physics enduring consistently and reliably for another 4 months. It seems to me that these are all empirically different"“"”and strikingly so"”"”from there not being laws of physics in the first place, and from there not being a real universe that instantiates them, and from there not being rational minds capable of doing physics, and from there not being moral experience, and from the laws of physics not enduring consistently and reliably for another 4 months.

Ockham's principle says not to multiply entities beyond necessity. Well, Ockham himself and I agree that these striking empirical differences require a theistic creator.

So to return to your questions:

Do you think God is empirically detectable?

Yes.

And do you think any mind is empirically detectable?

Yes.

What is it precisely is your justification for your judgment?

It is justified by abductive inferences. In God's case, the empirical data I noted above are best explained (in my view) by the hypothesis of a theistic creator as the causal agent who brings about that data. In the case of other minds generally, the hypothesis that conscious rational minds are the causal agents who bring about certain classes of human behavior best explains that behavioral data.

Comment by Thought Provoker — September 22, 2007 @ 8:23 pm

Farshad Says:
September 23rd, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Eventually, an insider revealed us one picture from Mike Gene's anticipated book!

Comment by Farshad — September 23, 2007 @ 2:54 pm

Thought Provoker Says:
September 25th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
Hi MikeGene,

Here is a provacative candidate for a post…

Prof says he was fired over Bible reference

From the DesMoines Register.

A community college instructor in Red Oak claims he was fired after he told his students that the biblical story of Adam and Eve should not be literally interpreted.

Steve Bitterman, 60, said officials at Southwestern Community College sided with a handful of students who threatened legal action over his remarks in a western civilization class Tuesday. He said he was fired Thursday.

…

Bitterman, who taught part time at Southwestern and Omaha's Metropolitan Community College, said he uses the Old Testament in his western civilization course and always teaches it from an academic standpoint.

Bitterman's Tuesday course was telecast to students in Osceola over the Iowa Communications Network. A few students in the Osceola classroom, he said, thought the lesson was "denigrating their religion."

"I put the Hebrew religion on the same plane as any other religion. Their god wasn't given any more credibility than any other god," Bitterman said. "I told them it was an extremely meaningful story, but you had to see it in a poetic, metaphoric or symbolic sense, that if you took it literally, that you were going to miss a whole lot of meaning there."

Bitterman said [he] called the story of Adam and Eve a "fairy tale" in a conversation with a student after the class and was told the students had threatened to see an attorney. He declined to identify any of the students in the class.

Assuming Professor Bitterman is accurately portraying the situation…

We say ye denizens of Telic Thoughts?

Comment by Thought Provoker — September 25, 2007 @ 4:49 pm

fifth monarchy man Says:
September 25th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
The Professor's tirade is not only unconstitutional it is unscientific.

From Dr Spencer Wells population Geneticist and director of the Genographic Project

Quote:

The human race began 60,000 years ago with a single family in an African valley.

And

Science tells us we are all related one vest family sharing a common ancestor who lived in Africa only 60,000 years ago.

At the same time a Western Civilization teacher at a Community College called the story of Adam and Eve a "fairy tale". LoL

All that being said I disagree with the students threat to sue. It is much more effective (and biblical) to suffer such abuse from fools than to resort to using their tactics.

Peace

Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 25, 2007 @ 6:51 pm

Zachriel Says:
September 25th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
fifth monarchy man (quoting Spencer Wells): The human race began 60,000 years ago with a single family in an African valley.

Can you provide a source for that statement?

Comment by Zachriel — September 25, 2007 @ 7:08 pm

Raevmo Says:
September 25th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
Science tells us we are all related one vest family sharing a common ancestor who lived in Africa only 60,000 years ago.

This only holds for some of our genes. Any gene that is unique to humans can be traced back to the first individual that had this (mutated) gene. In that sense we are all related to that person. That doesn't mean that person is the single ancestor of all of us.

FMM:

At the same time a Western Civilization teacher at a Community College called the story of Adam and Eve a "fairy tale". LoL

The biblical story is a fairy tale. If you can't see the difference between the fairy tale and the scientific conclusions, then you are a sadly deluded fool.

Peace

Comment by Raevmo — September 25, 2007 @ 7:27 pm

Zachriel Says:
September 25th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
I found some additional information. It apparently refers only to the y-chromosome.

Wells says, "Also, our Adam and Eve weren't the only people alive at the time, just the lucky ones who left descendants down to the present day." There was a population bottleneck due to climatic change and we would expect a founder effect in the surviving population.

However, I would have to see the specifics to support Wells' statement. Though we know that all y-chromosomes have a common ancestor (most of the y-chromosome is not subject to recombination hence forms a well-defined nested hierarchy), other genes from other ancestors may have survived into modern populations. It sounds like a gross oversimplification.

Comment by Zachriel — September 25, 2007 @ 7:28 pm

Bradford Says:
September 25th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
From the link:

"You don't fire professors for giving you a scientific answer."

Properties of DNA are a scientific matter. The existence of Adam, Eve and God is not. Thinking that it is should be grounds for termination.

Comment by Bradford — September 25, 2007 @ 9:15 pm

nullasalus Says:
September 25th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
We say ye denizens of Telic Thoughts?

I say that calling Adam and Eve a fairy tale is, even to Christians who certainly don't take the story as fundamentalist-literal, denigrating. Or at least I'd consider it such at a first glance. And I say this as someone who believes straight-up in common descent, old earth, etc without (currently) any firm IC-style objections.

That said, I wouldn't bother to comment on a quick journalist rundown of the case; "what someone said/meant" in this context is so delicate, that it's pointless to wonder about without knowing all the details clearly.

Oh, and…

"As a taxpayer, I'd like to know if a tax-supported public institution of higher learning has given veto power over what can and cannot be said in its classrooms to a fundamentalist religious group," he said. "If it has"¦then the taxpaying public of Iowa has a right to know. What's next? Whales talk French at the bottom of the sea?"

Supposedly, that's Bitterman again. Fundamentalist religious group? Whales talking French comparisons? (Sacre bleu! Or however you spell it. :grin:)

Either way - lacking what I'd guess are 95% of the pertinent details, my guess would be that Bitterman got in his digs at those "fundamentalist religious groups" he dislikes during the course of his class, was called on it, and was uncooperative when he was asked to kindly tone it down. Of course, I suppose someone else could view it as him casually mentioning that there were human events before 6000 years ago, and after failing to beat him to death on the spot with a bible, some zealots called on Pat Robertson's ACLJ team to bully the school into submission.

It is a mystery.

Comment by nullasalus — September 25, 2007 @ 11:21 pm

mtraven Says:
September 26th, 2007 at 12:26 am
Bradford said:

Properties of DNA are a scientific matter. The existence of Adam, Eve and God is not.

Waitaminute. There are versions of God that are beyond science, although I thought the whole point of this board was to look for scientific evidence of a designer. But surely Adam and Eve were either real existing people, or they weren't, and that fact is capable of being investigated by science.

Thinking that it is should be grounds for termination.

Goodness, now just thinking the wrong methodological thoughts can be grounds for termination! I thought you guys were always kvetching about how the academic freedoms were being trampled on.

Comment by mtraven — September 26, 2007 @ 12:26 am

stunney Says:
September 26th, 2007 at 1:57 am
fifth monarchy man wrote:

From Dr Spencer Wells population Geneticist and director of the Genographic Project

Quote:

The human race began 60,000 years ago with a single family in an African valley.

And

Science tells us we are all related one vest family sharing a common ancestor who lived in Africa only 60,000 years ago.

I've quoted the following material before. It supports the idea that modern homo sapiens appeared on the scene about 50,000 years ago, and in a rapid way spread out of Africa with a dramatically novel set of the cultural traits which characterize modern humans. This evidence is consistent with the position generally taken within Catholicism, which is that the distinctive moral, intellectual and spiritual properties and capacities traditionally referred to as the human soul were specially created and then connected by causal relations to the human body, and were not the result of the evolution of living matter alone. One can think of this as analogous to changing the program being implemented by a computer from a less sophisticated one to a more sophisticated one, one which could not have been evolved by the hardware itself. It needed a programmer and an intentionally introduced new program.

… If you've been following what I've said so far, you may be thinking, OK, you said that you've had modern humans or people who look pretty modern in Africa by 100,000 to 130,000 years ago and that's the fossil evidence behind the recent "Out of Africa" hypothesis, but that they only spread from Africa about 50,000 years ago. What took so long? Why that long lag, 80,000 years? I'd like to say a word or two about that because that's what I study and I think it's a very interesting question to address. There are two answers as to why it took 80,000 for people to spread from Africa–modern people, Homo sapiens–to spread from Africa and replace the Neanderthals and Homo erectus.

One answer, at one level, it's a very easy question to answer. When we look at the people who lived in Africa 130,000 years ago, sure, physically they're quite different from the Neanderthals and they're different in the direction of ourselves. But behaviorally they were not at all different from the Neanderthals. They made the same kinds of crude tools that the Neanderthals did.

Attributes of Fully Modern Behavior First Detectable 50,000-40,000 Years Ago

* Sharp increase in the diversity and standardization of artifact types

* First shaped bone, antler, ivory, and shell artifacts ("points," "needles," "awls", etc.)

* Earliest indisputable art

* Oldest structured camp floors, including elaborate hearths and the first "ruins"

* First long-distance transport of large quantities of stone for flaking

* Oldest ceremony or ritual, expressed both in art and in graves

* First adaptation to subarctic and arctic climates

* Major economic advances, including first fishing

* First population densities approaching those of historic hunter-gatherers in comparable environments

Other things they shared with the Neanderthals is a failure to make art. What this slide in fact shows you is a whole series of behavioral items that are detectable in the archeological record that only appear about 50,000 years ago. It doesn't matter where you are before 50,000 years ago, everybody is behaving in a Neanderthal way. But at 50,000 years ago we get a sharp increase in the diversity of different kind of artifact types. We can now begin to classify them into different pieces the way that archaeologists really like to do. They're more standardized. People beginning 50,000 years ago made tools, specific tools, for specific purposes unlike the Neanderthals or anybody else who lived before 50,000 years ago.

Something else, here's the art thing. The earliest indisputable art shows up at about 50,000 years ago. Something else which is tied to the art thing which is right above it on the slide here is we get the first evidence for the recognition of bone and shell and ivory, plastic raw materials, as stuff you can make artifacts from–they'd already been making stone tools. But it's at 50,000 years ago that bone appeared as a raw material for making artifacts, coins, needles, awls, things of that sort. It's remarkable that before 50,000 years ago people didn't recognize bone. They brought lots of bones back to their sites, presumably their food debris, but they never made artifacts from them. I mentioned that this is connected to the art thing because the earliest art we have is in bone and ivory, shell and things of that sort. I should say too, and a very important point here, that the earliest bone artifacts and the earliest art appear in Africa close to 50,000 years ago, appear in Europe only perhaps 3,000 or 4,000 years later. So again, that would be support for the "Out of Africa" hypothesis.

There are a whole bunch of other things here which I don't really want to go into in detail. There's one, however, that I think is very important, the second to the last one that I have on the screen here. At 50,000 years ago we get evidence for a major advance in human ability to take energy out of nature and build into people, an advance in hunting gathering ability. Everybody until 12,000 or 10,000 years ago was a hunter gatherer, making a living by hunting wild animals, gathering wild resources. But at 50,000 years ago we get a real inflection point, a kind of quantum advance in the ability to hunt and gather. We get the first evidence for fishing, for example. I worked in Southern Africa, I worked at sites that are older than 50,000 and sites that are younger. They're often located right on the coast. They were located on the coast when they were occupied by early people. If you have a site that's older than 50,000 years that was located on the coast, there are no fish bones in it. You can predict that in advance. After 50,000 years, fish will dominate.

It's pretty remarkable to think of people standing on a coastline looking out there, probably seeing fish all the time and not catching them. It's a major source of protein, a major resource that's immediately available to you. What were people doing before 50,000 years ago that caused them to ignore that? Well, when we get into the artifacts it's obvious: they didn't have the technology for fishing. That only appeared after 50,000 years ago. Once you have it, of course, then you're able to exploit this resource. What does it mean? Among other things, there are going to be a lot more people because you're now able to extract energy, calories and other things, out of nature, build them into populations and increase your population density.

One of the things that's obvious, I have that here, it's the last item. After 50,000 years ago, people were much more numerous on the ground than they were before under comparable environmental circumstances. One of the reasons that the Cro-Magnons were able to replace the Neanderthals so quickly is that when they appeared in Europe, they were much more abundant than the Neanderthals who they confronted. They were also much better armed, I can show that from the technology, as well.

PaleoArtSuccS.jpg This is just a slide to make some points about the artifacts that I've already made. Here's the 50,000 year mark here. You get the first bone artifacts, art objects including things that were really, maybe I should call jewelry. These are bone pendants. I regard them as art. They're items of personal decoration. Then here's a variety of cultural stages before 50,000 years ago with much simpler artifacts including no bone tools and no art. I should say from this, this is two and a half, of course, when stone tools first appeared, there was some change through time in artifacts between two and a half million years ago and 50,000 years ago. Without getting into the details, that's what this chart is supposed to show you. But the change is very slow. And it seems to have occurred hand in hand with change in morphology. In other words, human form changes pretty slowly between two and a half million and 50,000 years ago and the artifacts change pretty slowly. Then 50,000 years ago what happens? The human form stops changing. We are essentially indistinguishable in any major respect from people who lived 50,000 years ago. But look what's happened to culture.

So something very important happened 50,000 years ago. I think we crossed a kind of Rubicon, a threshold. We are effectively the hardware that allows the running of a vast range of different software programs. I think what happened–I like that analogy because my students can relate to it in a way that they couldn't relate to a lot of things I thought when I was their age–but what I think happened 50,000 years ago was the change in the operating system. This is basically, I think it was a point mutation that effected the brain. It may have been something that allowed languages as we understand it today, rapidly produced, articulate speech, the kind that I'm throwing out at you right now. You may be having a little difficulty because I speak very fast, but you're not having problems where you have to look up each work in a dictionary and then you miss the next ten, right? It's not a difficulty, our minds handle that particular issue without any problem whatsoever. I don't think that the Neanderthals could have.

But I must say that they could have dealt with speech in quite the same way, that they had language in the way we do. But I have to tell you, this is the weakness in my theory, this is the problem that I will refer to as the second kind of answer to why there was an 80,000 year lag between the appearance of people who look sort of like us and their spread. The behavioral change is very obvious and that's what allows the spread. But what lies behind the behavioral change? Well, that's the problem. I think it was a biological change. I think the Neanderthals were differently wired than we are. They could not behave as modern humans and so they became extinct. But I have no real direct fossil evidence for that. Neanderthal skulls are very differently shaped than ours. I'm going to go through some slides very quickly and maybe I'll get to one that shows you that. But it doesn't mean that the brain underneath was differently organized.

When you look at these earlier stages in change in time, in artifacts, in two and a half millions years I mentioned yes, we get the first stone artifacts and the first relatively large brained humans. There's an inflection, an increase in brain size at two and a half million. It's fairly dramatic and you can understand how artifacts would appear in connection with that. At about 1.7 we get another change in artifacts, the first appearance of hand axes and things of that sort and there's also a change, what seems to be a fairly dramatic, sudden change in flexipoint increase in brain size. And there may be another one at about 250,000 years ago, 0.25 million years ago–ny is millions years ago. There may have been another change in increase in brain size at about 250,000 years ago, ushering in yet a somewhat different way of making stone artifacts. But if there was at 250,000 years ago, if there was a change in brain size, it was to the size of modern brains. After 250,000 years ago everybody, including the Neanderthals, had brains at least as large as ours. The Neanderthals on average had somewhat larger brains.

So you can't use brain size as any kind of measure of behavior, behavioral ability, intellectual capacity, whatever word you want to use, after 250,000 years ago. If you're going to talk about a change 50,000 years ago you've got to rely on internal structure. It would have been a change in the organization of the brain. I imagine, for example, there are people in this room that know a lot more about the human brain than I do, but you know that the capacity for language resides in different parts of the brain. There's a part of the brain called brochosario where vocabulary resides–this can be established from unfortunate people who have had accidents that damage their brain–there's a part of the brain where vocabulary resides, there's another part where the structural rules, the grammar resides and so forth. And people who have these parts of their brains damaged, they can remember words, that part remains intact, but they lose their ability to construct sentences if the grammatical part is damaged.

I imagine that what happened 50,000 years ago was a highly advantageous mutation that produced a brain in which these things, these different parts were now very much better wired together, something of that sort. And then we have language as we understand it and this rapid spread from Africa and all the cultural innovations that obviously depended upon language and that allowed this spread from Africa. But I cannot show that in terms of the skulls that we have; they do not reveal the internal structure of the brain. Neanderthal skulls are differently shaped but I can't argue from that that they function differently from ours. So in that sense, my idea about a mutation, I think it's the most economic one available to us but it's not a great scientific hypothesis because at the moment it can't be falsified.

I just thought I'd show you some slides quickly to back up some of my points. These are some of the bone artifacts that people made beginning 40,000 to 50,000 years ago. You see this thing up on the top here. The top one has got a hole on the end. What is it? It's a needle, obviously, right. And that's surely what it was. We have the first evidence for tailored clothing after 50,000 years ago. One of the things that the Cro-Magnons could do that the Neanderthals couldn't was to live in arctic environments. How did they do that? Well, they made much nicer houses, much better houses than Neanderthals did but they also made tailored clothing and here's some of the evidence for it.

But we actually have even better evidence. We have soil traces of clothing around graves that date to 35,000 to 40,000 years ago that are obviously–with Cro-Magnon skeletons–obviously indications of clothing. Here's some other bone artifacts that appeared at about 40,000 to 50,000 years ago. We can't always understand exactly what these things were used for but I think they're obvious enough as artifacts. There are these things. This is art made again in bone or in this case, in ivory. Female figurines. Nothing like this before 40-50,000 years ago.

Maybe I can go back to something I said at the beginning in talking about this. I was on this stage a couple of years ago talking to an audience in a symposium on the origins of art. I said look, the Neanderthals didn't make it, it appears very suddenly. It's kind of a creative explosion between roughly 45,000 years ago and suddenly there's art everywhere. I said, I think they didn't make art because they were genetically incapable of it, if you like, intellectually incapable of it as a result of the way in which they were wired together. It did not meet with a lot of enthusiasm in the part of the audience, most of whom were social anthropologists and their students. The person who got up after me said, well, he didn't believe that. And there was actual applause from the audience. I'm thinking, what's going on here? So I asked some people afterwards and it turned out that this is an affirmative action issue. It's as if I was trying to keep the Neanderthals out of college. When I said, what is your evidence that they produced art? Well, there's no evidence that they produced art but they could have. I was thinking to myself, if that's the kind of arguments you want to make, then there's no point in doing a study like this. I was sitting there thinking, gee, I can imagine some two inch long Mesozoic mammal trying to make up his mind whether to keep his blood warm or paint the Mona Lisa.

Of course, we have this, everybody is familiar with that kind of thing. I talked about housing. You may have seen on a slide that I had before that one of the innovations, one of the novelties that appears 50,000 years ago is better housing. This is a house that was occupied in the Ukraine in this Cro-Magnon interval made of mammoth bones. That's the way, the upper left, is what it looked like when it was first executed, all the bones sort of falling in. Underneath were bunches of artifacts and broken up smaller animal bones that are food debris. That's an artist's reconstruction of what the thing probably looked like. This is in an area where the Neanderthal couldn't even live, it was too cold for them but you can understand how the Cro-Magnons were able to do that with that kind of housing.

Here again, back to this question of living in areas where the Neanderthals couldn't live, here's some people, Cro-Magnons, trapping for fur, arctic fox in this case. We actually have evidence that this happened. We have sites where the animals that are represented are mainly arctic fox or wolf and all we have are the paws, or the paw bones, that is. The skins have long since disappeared but the paws are what would have been removed with the skins. And we have sites where there are thousands of these things. People were obviously trapping for furs but only the Cro-Magnons did that, the Neanderthals didn't. We have no evidence for that and of course they didn't live in areas where Cro-Magnons were able to live as a result of using these furs.

Elaborate burials appear only about 40,000 to 50,000 years ago. This is one reconstructed from an actual excavation in the Czech Republic. SLIDE # 14 We had other things which I only barely alluded to. The expansions of human populations, I said that the Cro-Magnons were able to live in environments where the Neanderthals couldn't. And among those environments were very cold places like Siberia. Of course, until you get people to Siberia which is at the upper left hand corner of this slide, you can't get them into the Americas. And that's what this slide is designed to show. It's got some other points, too but the occupation of the Americas obviously could not occur until we have the evolution of the Cro-Magnons. In fact, we don't actually get people living up in the Northeastern corner of Asia, in Northeast Siberia until about 13,000 or 14,000 years ago. So even the Cro-Magnons took a little while to adapt to the most rigorous environments that were available on the earth. Once they were up there then they had a chance of making it into the Americas.

Australia is another place that's interesting in this context. As far as I'm concerned, there's no good evidence for occupation of Australia before about 40,000 years ago. Australia is very different then the American situation we were just talking about a moment ago. If you were to come across, if you were to come to America 10 or 12 or 13,000 years ago, as I believe people first did, you could have actually walked across on dry land because the Bering Straits were emerging, there was a lot of water locked up in the glaciers and that lowered sea levels sufficiently for the Bering Straits to become dry land. You could walk right across from Asia. You could have done the same thing to Australia, all we needed were boats. Even with lower sea levels there were always substantial stretches of sea to cross. So the first Australians had to come with boats. And they had these pretty good boats because they always had to be able to get across at least 50 miles of open sea. You couldn't have something that would get water logged and sink. To me it's no mystery that the first Australians only got there 40,000 years ago because I don't think people before that were able to intellectually to construct the kinds of boats necessary to make the trip.

This is the last point here and I'll be quiet. There's a reconstruction of a Neanderthal skull on the left and a Cro-Magnon skull, in fact the Cro-Magnon skull, the original Old Man so-called of Cro-Magnon on the right. You can see a couple things here. First of all, you can see there's a very similar size in terms of their brain case, the part that encloses the brain. But you can also see they're very different in shape. I'm not just talking about the face, Neanderthals have really strange faces. As I say, if one walked into this room right now you'd have no difficulty detecting him. It's as if you put your fingers on your nose and pulled out two inches, everything swept back from there. So their faces are very different but you can see the skull is also differently shaped. In fact, if you were to make measurements, let's say from between the root of the nose back to the rear of the skull, the Neanderthal one would be very long compared to the Cro-Magnon one, particularly if you compared that measurement to a measurement from the ear aperture to the top. Neanderthal skulls were kind of long and low compared to ours which are shorter and higher. But unfortunately, even with this difference in shape, I can't say that that tells you anything about the difference in the way the brains were organized inside. This is, as I said, a major problem with my notion as to what actually lays ultimately behind this spread of Africans to Eurasia, "Out of Africa" to Eurasia 50,000 years ago. Thank you very much.

[Emphases added]

Comment by stunney — September 26, 2007 @ 1:57 am

fifth monarchy man Says:
September 26th, 2007 at 4:33 am
Zach:

Can you provide a source for that statement?

It is from the back cover and inside jacket of the book I just happened to start last night

Deep ancestry and the genography project.

Divine providence? You be the judge.

Peace

Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 26, 2007 @ 4:33 am

fifth monarchy man Says:
September 26th, 2007 at 4:42 am
"Also, our Adam and Eve weren't the only people alive at the time, just the lucky ones who left descendants down to the present day."

Yet early man seems to have had an aversion to having sex with these folks at least in the case of Neanderthals. Could it be that they thought of themselves as different and their neighbors as less than human?

Peace

Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 26, 2007 @ 4:42 am

Zachriel Says:
September 26th, 2007 at 7:52 am
fifth monarchy man: Yet early man seems to have had an aversion to having sex with these folks at least in the case of Neanderthals. Could it be that they thought of themselves as different and their neighbors as less than human?

I think you missed the point of the comment.

* As (most of) the y-chromosome is not subject to recombination, it will form a distinct nested hierarchy and therefore be rooted in a common ancestor.
* The "Adam and Eve" interbred with others of their tribe and species, but only one male left male descendents. This may simply be a result of neutral fixation due to the Founder Effect.
* Other genes besides the y-chromosome from other ancestors probably still exist in modern populations. In other words, all genes in all people did not descend from two individuals.

Comment by Zachriel — September 26, 2007 @ 7:52 am

Joy Says:
September 26th, 2007 at 11:53 am
TP:

We say ye denizens of Telic Thoughts?

I'd say the college administration had better have a different reason for firing the teacher than that some students didn't like his opinion of Genesis. This is college, not kindergarten or Sunday school, and the students are all presumably old enough to vote (legally adult). Out in the real sociopolitical world they have no right not to be offended. Freedom of speech trumps their emotional insecurities.

Though this teacher certainly could have used more applicable (to his subject) textbooks and supplements. I can think of few resources that would be less enlightening for a course in western civilization than Genesis. If he were serious about explaining the Judeo-Christian impetus in American governance and western civilization, O'Sullivan's Manifest Destiny is a much better text to parse.

Maybe he should consider teaching a course in AMERICAN history at his next job, maybe even cover the Constitution. Including Amendment #1.

Comment by Joy — September 26, 2007 @ 11:53 am

Bradford Says:
September 26th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Properties of DNA are a scientific matter. The existence of Adam, Eve and God is not.

mtraven: Waitaminute. There are versions of God that are beyond science, although I thought the whole point of this board was to look for scientific evidence of a designer. But surely Adam and Eve were either real existing people, or they weren't, and that fact is capable of being investigated by science.

What specific hypothesis would you propose to test for the existence of Adam, Eve and God? What type of lab equipment would be needed? If a professor describes his personal opinions as science in a classroom setting he better have the goods to back the claim. Why would critics, who endlessly harp about ID not being science, be so uncritical about linking science to claims that are beyond what science tests for?

Comment by Bradford — September 26, 2007 @ 12:30 pm

mtraven Says:
September 26th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
What specific hypothesis would you propose to test for the existence of Adam, Eve and God? What type of lab equipment would be needed?

The point is that the existence of Adam and Eve (not God, in most interpretations) is a material fact which is in principle open to scientific investigation, even if we don't have the necessary instruments. Like any scientific question about the deep past, we can't observe it directly, the best we can do is make models that fit the evidence we do have. Which is most likely, that there was a single male human ancestor formed out of clay and a female formed from a rib in his side, or that humans evolved gradually from other primates? Surely this is a question that science can address.

Comment by mtraven — September 26, 2007 @ 3:17 pm

stunney Says:
September 26th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Zachriel wrote:

* The "Adam and Eve" interbred with others of their tribe and species, but only one male left male descendents. This may simply be a result of neutral fixation due to the Founder Effect.
* Other genes besides the y-chromosome from other ancestors probably still exist in modern populations. In other words, all genes in all people did not descend from two individuals.

Notice how "may be" and "probably" become "did not". Perhaps Zachriel thought no-one would notice.

Now, this is not my field, but might not the "other genes besides the y-chromosone" derive from other human descendants of "Adam and Eve", descendants whose genes were the result of novel mutations? In which case it might still be the case that every human alive today descended from one pair of ancestors? (See below.)

Also, why can't a Founder Effect also be an Adam Effect, if the founder had a different kind of brain resulting from a mutation as Klein has hypothesized (see below and my long quote from him in my previous comment above)?

Here's some interesting stuff…

Documentary Redraws Humans' Family Tree

Hillary Mayell
for National Geographic News
January 21, 2003

By analyzing DNA from people in all regions of the world, geneticist Spencer Wells has concluded that all humans alive today are descended from a single man who lived in Africa around 60,000 years ago.

In paleoanthropology, the recent single-origin hypothesis (RSOH, or Out-of-Africa model, or Replacement Hypothesis) is one of two accounts of the origin of anatomically modern humans, Homo sapiens. According to the RSOH, anatomically modern humans evolved in Africa between 200,000 and 100,000 years ago, with members of one branch leaving Africa between 55,000 to 60,000 years ago.[1] These emigrants spread to the rest of the world, replacing (and not interbreeding with) other Homo species already there, such as Neanderthals and Homo erectus.[2] The hypothesis is derived from research in several disciplines, chiefly genetics, archeology and linguistics.

Currently available genetic and archaeological evidence is generally interpreted as supportive of a recent single origin of modern humans in East Africa.[3] The alternative theory is the multiregional hypothesis, including the Hybrid-origin theory archaeogenetic.

…. Klein7, on the other hand, proffers the notion that it was probably a biological change brought about by mutations that played the key role in the emergence of behaviorally modern humans. His biologically based explanation implies that a major neural reorganization of the brain resulted in a significant enhancement in the manner in which the brain processed information. This is a difficult hypothesis to test since brains do not fossilize. But it is significant that no changes are seen in the shape of the skulls between earlier and later Homo sapiens. It can only be surmised from the archaeological record, which contains abundant evidence for ritual and art, that these Upper Paleolithic/Late Stone Age peoples possessed language abilities equivalent to our own. For many anthropologists this represents the final evolutionary leap to full modernity.

And here's an interesting statement:

While their descendants certainly became close intimates, Y-chromosomal Adam and mitochondrial Eve are separated by at least 30,000 years, or possibly a thousand generations.

Doesn't that suggest that it's possible that a descendant of Y-chromosomal Adam and a descendant of mitochondrial Eve became themselves a reproductive pair from whom every human alive today is descended?

Not that it really matters that much, since it's obvious that every human is genetically linked by common ancestry and origins, and linked by sinful behavioral proclivities which, as a non-literalist about Genesis, is all that I take to be the point of the Adam and Eve story. But I do think that when most people hear about that story as having been 'debunked' by evolutionary science, they are usually not told that modern humans are really a very recent part of evolutionary history, much more recent than 'millions of years ago'. Certainly I was surprised at just how recent, having never questioned the generalized picture of "humans have been around for millions of years hence Adam and Eve is a myth" which one learns in high school. But what if a single reproductive human pair with novel traits, in particular novel brain organization, living in north-east Africa circa 50,000 years ago, passed on those traits and brain organization to descendants who then spread out into Eurasia, and everyone today has inherited those traits and brain patterns, some of which are associated with our sinful proclivities? In that case maybe the Adam and Eve myth is rooted in something real in our past, and represents a kind of Jungian archetypical memory.

Comment by stunney — September 26, 2007 @ 3:52 pm

stunney Says:
September 26th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Mods, mod service, please.

Comment by stunney — September 26, 2007 @ 3:59 pm

Bradford Says:
September 26th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
mtraven:

The point is that the existence of Adam and Eve (not God, in most interpretations) is a material fact which is in principle open to scientific investigation, even if we don't have the necessary instruments. Like any scientific question about the deep past, we can't observe it directly, the best we can do is make models that fit the evidence we do have.

That humans had some first ancestors is factual but it is also a trivial point.

Which is most likely, that there was a single male human ancestor formed out of clay and a female formed from a rib in his side, or that humans evolved gradually from other primates? Surely this is a question that science can address.

The Bible does use terms like clay and dust and earth. That's another means of referring to minerals that are constituent parts of organisms. Of course Genesis is open to interpretation and has moral lessons imbedded. All the more reason to separate religion from other aspects of academia if the separation clause is to be taken seriously.

Comment by Bradford — September 26, 2007 @ 4:02 pm

fifth monarchy man Says:
September 26th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Hey All

It's important to remember that the literal truth of the Adam and Eve account is not the issue here. What is at issue is whether the founding story of three great religions and the vast majority of mankind is the equivalent of little red riding hood or the three bears

Joy

I'd say the college administration had better have a different reason for firing the teacher than that some students didn't like his opinion of Genesis. This is college, not kindergarten or Sunday school,

I would agree if these are the facts of the case. I understood the article to say that this class was attended by students from a rural high school (Osceola).

Zach:

As (most of) the y-chromosome is not subject to recombination, it will form a distinct nested hierarchy and therefore be rooted in a common ancestor.
* The "Adam and Eve" interbred with others of their tribe and species, but only one male left male descendents. This may simply be a result of neutral fixation due to the Founder Effect.

The key word here is "may" not is. How would the genetic code in a population you describe be different than the one described in the bible?

* Other genes besides the y-chromosome from other ancestors probably still exist in modern populations. In other words, all genes in all people did not descend from two individuals.

This sounds like another testable prediction. How would we know if a particular gene was from the other populations?

The very fact that we are having this conversation demonstrates the silliness of the professors contention. Clearly we would not be descussing the three bears this way.

mtraven

Which is most likely, that there was a single male human ancestor formed out of clay and a female formed from a rib in his side, or that humans evolved gradually from other primates?

Although I'm not at all sure this what Genesis is communicating (see Bradford's response and the strangely parallel story in Genesis 19:30-38) This is another testable prediction.

Suppose a scientist cloned a male subject and engineered the fetus to be female then bred the two. How would the results of this union look after 60000 years? Could we detect this in the DNA?

I love the smell of science

Peace

Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 26, 2007 @ 6:03 pm

Raevmo Says:
September 26th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
stunney:

I've quoted the following material before.

Ad nauseam in fact. Like a broken record.

This evidence is consistent with the position generally taken within Catholicism, which is that the distinctive moral, intellectual and spiritual properties and capacities traditionally referred to as the human soul were specially created and then connected by causal relations to the human body, and were not the result of the evolution of living matter alone.

It's also consistent with the position that the catholic position is wrong.

One can think of this as analogous to changing the program being implemented by a computer from a less sophisticated one to a more sophisticated one, one which could not have been evolved by the hardware itself.

Yes, one can. Human 1.0 = Monkey 2.0. But one would have to be a bit silly.

Comment by Raevmo — September 26, 2007 @ 6:18 pm

stunney Says:
September 26th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
Raevmo wrote:

stunney:

I've quoted the following material before.

r: Ad nauseam in fact. Like a broken record.

Well, perhaps you should take some Peptobismol, lie down, put some earplugs in, and try to think original, exciting new thoughts.

But here's what you wrote about it before:

Thanks for the link. Very interesting indeed. And spooky, it's almost as if humans got infused with souls 50Ky ago. Klein seems to think that a mutation occurred that somehow increased our linguistic capabilities. Seems plausible enough to me. Wouldn't it be great if we could pinpoint what mutation that was with our rapidly expanding Darwinistic arsenal?

How important is language for thinking or cultural revolutions like 50Ky ago? Is it just that language is needed to communicate great new ideas? Or do the great ideas require language?

[Emphases added]

Maybe you're just angry today. Or maybe you have a desire to target my posts ad nauseam and in a non-substantive way because they cause you deep, inner emotional turmoil.

But if so remember what you believe: such turmoil is just matter in motion.

me: This evidence is consistent with the position generally taken within Catholicism, which is that the distinctive moral, intellectual and spiritual properties and capacities traditionally referred to as the human soul were specially created and then connected by causal relations to the human body, and were not the result of the evolution of living matter alone.

r: It's also consistent with the position that the catholic position is wrong.

Do you have an argument for the proposition that the Catholic position is wrong, or are you just being petulant?

The scientific evidence is that humans did indeed exhibit a dramatic and sudden increase in mental abilities about 50k years ago. This is prima facie inconsistent with Darwinian gradualism, even leaving to one side the critique of materialism as a philosophy of mind.

me One can think of this as analogous to changing the program being implemented by a computer from a less sophisticated one to a more sophisticated one, one which could not have been evolved by the hardware itself.

r: Yes, one can.

That's what I thought.

Human 1.0 = Monkey 2.0.

Are you quoting a scientific paper? Or is this just today's Talking Points Memo from the Department of Huh?

But one would have to be a bit silly.

Why? Do think human mental software is not different from the mental software of other animals? Wouldn't one have to be silly, not just a bit silly, to think such a thing?

Comment by stunney — September 26, 2007 @ 7:23 pm

Zachriel Says:
September 26th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
Zachriel: * The "Adam and Eve" interbred with others of their tribe and species, but only one male left male descendents. This may simply be a result of neutral fixation due to the Founder Effect.

fifth monarchy man: The key word here is "may" not is. How would the genetic code in a population you describe be different than the one described in the bible?

Your original assertion of a common ancestor to modern humans is based on the observed nested hierarchy of y-chromosomes. Humans fit into the overall nested hierarchy of life, the tree of descent. Biblical Adam and Eve were specially created so we would not expect a nested hierarchy, certainly not this nested hierarchy, and especially not nested hierarchies of endogenous retroviruses.

(Nor are a single pair of humans a biologically viable reproductive population.)

fifth monarchy man: This sounds like another testable prediction. How would we know if a particular gene was from the other populations?

Not from other populations. Other individuals from the same population. Also, keep in mind that only uncrossed descent forms a nested hierarchy. This would include mtDNA, y-chromosomes, or populations that diverge and become reproductively isolated. A specific allele and its variants form a nested hierarchy (with appropriate caveats), but this pattern may not match the nested hierarchy of other genes due to sexual recombination (crossing). A man certainly has his father's y-chromosome, but may have his mother's eyes.

Comment by Zachriel — September 26, 2007 @ 7:36 pm

nullasalus Says:
September 26th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
The scientific evidence is that humans did indeed exhibit a dramatic and sudden increase in mental abilities about 50k years ago. This is prima facie inconsistent with Darwinian gradualism, even leaving to one side the critique of materialism as a philosophy of mind.

I suppose one could at least say that thought/mind, thanks to the plasticity of the human brain, doesn't follow the same rules as whole-organisms and species do. So it's not that darwinism is wrong in this case, just possibly inapplicable.

I'm trying to frame it as nicely as possible for the people who don't like the seeming explosive history of this. 'Big Bang of human thought' I believe it's been called by some.

Zach,

Biblical Adam and Eve were specially created so we would not expect a nested hierarchy, certainly not this nested hierarchy, and especially not nested hierarchies of endogenous retroviruses.

Depends on how you're reading the chapter. Special creation of Adam and Eve from the ground up is one reading among others, and many tend to take the 'But mine is the right one' view. Doesn't make it so.

Comment by nullasalus — September 26, 2007 @ 7:49 pm

Joy Says:
September 26th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
fmm:

I would agree if these are the facts of the case. I understood the article to say that this class was attended by students from a rural high school (Osceola).

Ah, so. I didn't find a reference to who "Osceola" was. I presume the teacher knew he was being filmed for general educational broadcast, thus should also have known he couldn't require an interpretive angle on the material (which he should have left at home). But that just makes him an idiot, and the administrators of his community college even dumber. He still has his right to free speech in his classroom, and the liberty to teach as he's always taught under his contract.

There is no right in this country to be free of insult from what other people ARE free to say. It doesn't even hurt high school kids to know that, since they're the ones whose filthy rap music we had to jump hard on with both feet in our local after-school's in-house radio program. Can't play dat here, homey!

Those are still the facts, though as I mentioned this teacher would do better to teach American history, where he'd have a real chance to introduce constitutional concepts the sheltered home-schoolers never heard of. Like freedom of speech.

Comment by Joy — September 26, 2007 @ 7:55 pm

stunney Says:
September 26th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
Can this comment be taken out of 'moderation'? And how does moderation work?

I prefer William Blake's take:

The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom.

The Marriage of Heaven and Hell

Comment by stunney — September 26, 2007 @ 7:59 pm

Zachriel Says:
September 26th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
nullasalus: I'm trying to frame it as nicely as possible for the people who don't like the seeming explosive history of this. 'Big Bang of human thought' I believe it's been called by some.

The hominid brain went through rapid evolution, then reached a critical point of development; but nothing that is beyond the capability of known mechanisms. It took hundreds-of-thousands of years of evolution for humans to realize their 'overnight' success.

nullasalus: Depends on how you're reading the chapter. Special creation of Adam and Eve from the ground up is one reading among others, and many tend to take the 'But mine is the right one' view. Doesn't make it so.

Genesis 2,7: And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

If you want to posit a process that looks for all intents and purposes the same as what is expected by the normal course of evolution that resulted in the origin of every other living organism, then your claim is scientifically vacuous.

(By the way, the Bible provides far more specific of a mechanism than Intelligent Design ever did.)

Comment by Zachriel — September 26, 2007 @ 8:05 pm

nullasalus Says:
September 26th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
Zach,

The hominid brain went through rapid evolution, then reached a critical point of development; but nothing that is beyond the capability of known mechanisms. It took hundreds-of-thousands of years of evolution for humans to realize their 'overnight' success.

Why not just go for broke, count the OOL as your starting point, and argue that it took *billions* of years? Why, it wasn't just gradualism, it was gradualism that was so gradual that the process began even before there were humans at all!

..Really, no one here is disputing that there were precursors to the 50kyo hominids. Saying 'oh well there was a lot of time that passed before this extraordinary and seemingly rapid mental stage' doesn't magically make it a gradual darwinian event. Whatever guards your metaphysics, I suppose.

If you want to posit a process that looks for all intents and purposes the same as what is expected by the normal course of evolution that resulted in the origin of every other living organism, then your claim is scientifically vacuous.

But it doesn't look the same. Haven't you been paying attention? We're not even discussing organism origins or species introduction here; we're talking about a major change in the mental traits and achievements of a particular species that itself seems anything but gradual in both introduction and repercussion. In fact, I even said…

I suppose one could at least say that thought/mind, thanks to the plasticity of the human brain, doesn't follow the same rules as whole-organisms and species do. So it's not that darwinism is wrong in this case, just possibly inapplicable.

Saying that reading Genesis in a way that reconciles it easily with known science and history is 'scientifically vacuous' is adorable, because it misses the point so splendidly. You may as well call, say.. the Declaration of Independence 'scientifically vacuous'.

It even makes scientific claims: All men are created equal. Let's test that in the lab!

Comment by nullasalus — September 26, 2007 @ 9:05 pm

Bradford Says:
September 26th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
Genesis 2,7: And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Zachriel: (By the way, the Bible provides far more specific of a mechanism than Intelligent Design ever did.)

Then kindly advise us of the process used to form man out of the dust of the ground. Is that the type of specificity you look for in science? I get intent out of the passage but little with regard to physical details.

Comment by Bradford — September 26, 2007 @ 9:40 pm

Zachriel Says:
September 26th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
nullasalus: Saying 'oh well there was a lot of time that passed before this extraordinary and seemingly rapid mental stage' doesn't magically make it a gradual darwinian event.

You use the word "rapid" in a qualitative manner, but the timescales involved in the increase in hominid brainsize took hundreds-of-thousands of years. Specific genes involved in this process have been identified (e.g. HAR1). Yes, it was relatively rapid, but within the capability of known mechanisms, including natural selection.

Sure, there could have been tampering by monolith involved, but there is no evidence of to support the claim. May as well posit an orbiting teacup.

nullasalus: But it doesn't look the same.

Sure it does. It just doesn't look like your strawman. Evolving networks often exhibit periodic criticality. Scale-free behavior implies lots of little changes, a few big changes and the rare revolution. Rapid, adaptive evolution into new niches is a found throughout evolutionary time. We *know* that the rate of observed evolution in extant populations is many times faster than the fastest rate found in the historical record.

nullasalus: I suppose one could at least say that thought/mind, thanks to the plasticity of the human brain, doesn't follow the same rules as whole-organisms and species do. So it's not that darwinism is wrong in this case, just possibly inapplicable.

Culture has changed very rapidly and the brain has been under strong selective pressure. There is no evidence that the brain is doing anything more than evolving by known biological mechanisms. You could *suppose* there is something else going on, but again, there is no such evidence.

Comment by Zachriel — September 26, 2007 @ 10:28 pm

Zachriel Says:
September 26th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
Genesis 2,7: And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Zachriel: (By the way, the Bible provides far more specific of a mechanism than Intelligent Design ever did.)

Bradford: Then kindly advise us of the process used to form man out of the dust of the ground. Is that the type of specificity you look for in science? I get intent out of the passage but little with regard to physical details.

We have the materials used, the dust of the ground. We have some idea of the agent involved, the LORD God. The forming appears to be akin to molding clay. And then we have the breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. It a far cry from a testable scientific description, but it's far more specific than that typically provided by ID which is an unknown agent by an unknown mechanism at an unknown time and an unknown place.

Comment by Zachriel — September 26, 2007 @ 10:36 pm

Bradford Says:
September 26th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
We have the materials used, the dust of the ground. We have some idea of the agent involved, the LORD God. The forming appears to be akin to molding clay. And then we have the breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. It a far cry from a testable scientific description, but it's far more specific than that typically provided by ID which is an unknown agent by an unknown mechanism at an unknown time and an unknown place.

It seems like most IDists are on the same page as non-IDists as far as place (earth) and time frame are concerned. As far as mechanisms go there are indentifiable ones associated with an evolutionary process although different conclusions might be reached with regard to whether or not muatations have been truly random and how selection operates with respect to FL. I don't think we need to be in a hurry about mechanisms. After all conventional theories are still lacking confirmed mechanisms applicable to origins after many, many years.

Comment by Bradford — September 26, 2007 @ 11:13 pm

nullasalus Says:
September 26th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
Zach,

You use the word "rapid" in a qualitative manner, but the timescales involved in the increase in hominid brainsize took hundreds-of-thousands of years. Specific genes involved in this process have been identified. Yes, it was relatively rapid, but within the capability of known mechanisms, including natural selection.

Leaving aside the rapidity, qualitative or not - again, the point of "rapidity" being discussed here, the suddenness, is centered around the 50kyo mark and evidence of accomplishment and comprehension. 'Hominid brain size' is not itself the issue. Though I suppose you could make one hell of an argument about front-loading when it comes to the brain.

We *know* that the rate of observed evolution in extant populations is many times faster than the fastest rate found in the historical record.

Inapplicable - see above. In fact..

Culture has changed very rapidly and the brain has been under strong selective pressure. There is no evidence that the brain is doing anything more than evolving by known biological mechanisms.

And there's no reason to suspect that an altered evolution of the human brain would be necessary for some kind of external provocation or endowment of thought. What's being pointed out is that, at one point in the history of our species, our mental traits (and they well could have been traits we were biologically capable of well in advance, I say) exploded. Wondering about the specific trigger (Some environmental experience that was communicated rapidly and formed cultural bases?) is all well and good - but it's more than enough, in the context being discussed here, to notice that SOMEthing happened. And it's worth investigating scientifically, wherever it leads.

We have the materials used, the dust of the ground. We have some idea of the agent involved, the LORD God. The forming appears to be akin to molding clay. And then we have the breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.

Is 'All men are created equal' a falsifiable statement? Those 'The Bell Curve' authors seem to think so. Or were the founders wrong on that one?

Comment by nullasalus — September 26, 2007 @ 11:15 pm

fifth monarchy man Says:
September 27th, 2007 at 4:46 am
Is it just me who notices that we are once again having a bible study on a science blog because of an article submitted by an atheist who is passionate about NOMA. I love it so.

We have the materials used, the dust of the ground. We have some idea of the agent involved, the LORD God. The forming appears to be akin to molding clay.

I'm the bible thumping fundamentalist here and I've never heard the creation of Adam described in this way in the backwoods Baptist church I grew up in. In fact such a thing amounts to a heretical description of God.

You must remember that according to us biblical literalists God is Sprit and has no hands.

It seems to me that the Genesis acount is perfectly compatible with the idea that Adam was created the same way as every man who was ever created.

God formed him in the womb. compare

Gen 2:7

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

with

Jeremiah 1:5

Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, [and] I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

Peace

Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 27, 2007 @ 4:46 am

Zachriel Says:
September 27th, 2007 at 7:40 am
nullasalus: Though I suppose you could make one hell of an argument about front-loading when it comes to the brain.

The nervous system has evolved over hundreds-of-millions of years. There is no evidence of a direction towards a particular result.

nullasalus: What's being pointed out is that, at one point in the history of our species, our mental traits (and they well could have been traits we were biologically capable of well in advance, I say) exploded.

Culture exploded as a result of reaching a capability of abstraction. Culture continues to explode, but the evolution of the brain is limited by biological evolution.

nullasalus: but it's more than enough, in the context being discussed here, to notice that SOMEthing happened. And it's worth investigating scientifically, wherever it leads.

Of course something happened. You say it should be investigated. Well, it has and is being investigated. Thus far, there is no evidence of tampering by monolith (or orbiting teacup), but substantial evidence of biological evolution in accord with the evolution of every other organism on the planet.

nullasalus: Is 'All men are created equal' a falsifiable statement?

The Founders' claim isn't that everyone is equal in ability. It's not a scientific statement, nor meant to be falsifiable. It is a political statement and those that accept the premise of the syllogism can then follow the argument to the conclusion. Equality. Right of the People. Prudence. Transgressions. Revolution. Not everyone accepted the claim; for instance, many reasonably believed that Duty to Sovereign preempted other claims.

Comment by Zachriel — September 27, 2007 @ 7:40 am

Zachriel Says:
September 27th, 2007 at 7:47 am
fifth monarchy man: I'm the bible thumping fundamentalist here and I've never heard the creation of Adam described in this way in the backwoods Baptist church I grew up in.

Your refusal to believe that Special Creation was a commonly held belief is irrelevant. Closing your eyes is not an argument.

1925: Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Tennessee, That it shall be unlawful for any teacher in any of the Universities, Normals and all other public schools of the State which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State, to teach any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals.

Comment by Zachriel — September 27, 2007 @ 7:47 am

Zachriel Says:
September 27th, 2007 at 7:53 am
Bradford: After all conventional theories are still lacking confirmed mechanisms applicable to origins after many, many years.

There are a variety of *observed* mechanisms of biological novelty. We can predict that the rate of morphological and genomic evolution we observe must be at least as rapid as that observed in the historical record. This prediction has been confirmed by a variety of studies. Evolution can proceed very rapidly when selection pressures are great.

Comment by Zachriel — September 27, 2007 @ 7:53 am

Thought Provoker Says:
September 27th, 2007 at 10:07 am
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,

Is it just me who notices that we are once again having a bible study on a science blog because of an article submitted by an atheist who is passionate about NOMA. I love it so.

For my part, I am glad to oblige.

Embracing NOMA means I can both believe in God and not believe in God.

Philosophically, I believe there is more than one Truth that will forever remain elusive. If you say you know a Truth I can't contradict you since I don't know the Truth.

Scientifically, I feel the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent and timeless being generally known as "God" isn't supported by empirical evidence.

This doesn't mean Science is more important. Philosophy is very important. We can talk about both, as long as we identify the separation (in my opinion).

Comment by Thought Provoker — September 27, 2007 @ 10:07 am

Bradford Says:
September 27th, 2007 at 10:57 am
TP:

This doesn't mean Science is more important. Philosophy is very important. We can talk about both, as long as we identify the separation (in my opinion).

I'm not arguing with this but would hasten to point out that the news article you referenced entails a boundary violation of NOMA and a near violation of the separation clause as well. I do not know if fmm's assessment of your part in this is correct because you have reported rather than commented on the article AFAIK.

Comment by Bradford — September 27, 2007 @ 10:57 am

stunney Says:
September 27th, 2007 at 11:39 am
Zachriel wrote:

You use the word "rapid" in a qualitative manner, but the timescales involved in the increase in hominid brainsize took hundreds-of-thousands of years.

But, as the material by Klein I've so nauseatingly reposted makes crystal clear, brain size isn't the issue. In fact, there is no known anatomical difference involved.

There is no evidence that the brain is doing anything more than evolving by known biological mechanisms. You could *suppose* there is something else going on, but again, there is no such evidence.

But, as the material by Klein I've so nauseatingly reposted makes crystal clear, there is, since there's no evidence of a relevant anatomical change involved, and yets loads of evidence of dramatic behavioral changes, unlike any previous ones in suddeness and scope, in fact. So rather obviously there was 'something else going on'.

Zachriel, of course, has wisely chosen not to read my posts, ever since I laughed at him for implying that if there are 6 million printed copies of the US Constitution, then there are 6 million US Constitutions. And before that, laughed at him for saying there is 'some evidence' that there are minds.:mrgreen: And frequently I've laughed at him for not providing specific, distinguishing, empirical predictions deriving from the hypothesis that evolutionary processes were entirely natural that would turn out false in the null case.:mrgreen:

But don't tell him about the Klein material, please. Zachriel is so dogmatic and pathetic a fundamentalist he might start in with his ludicrous definition-Nazi antics.:roll:

Comment by stunney — September 27, 2007 @ 11:39 am

nullasalus Says:
September 27th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
The nervous system has evolved over hundreds-of-millions of years. There is no evidence of a direction towards a particular result.

Culture exploded as a result of reaching a capability of abstraction. Culture continues to explode, but the evolution of the brain is limited by biological evolution.

Of course something happened. You say it should be investigated. Well, it has and is being investigated. Thus far, there is no evidence of tampering by monolith (or orbiting teacup), but substantial evidence of biological evolution in accord with the evolution of every other organism on the planet.

Unless you're trying to argue that, 50kyo, there was a mass outbreak of mutations that led to cultural advancements, all this is fine - but missing the point. As stunney said, and as I've repeated - again and again - the anatomical differences aren't the issue here. There is no evidence of a sudden widespread mutation 50ky ago that resulted in the cultural and mental changes that have so far been documented. Pointing to the evidenced biological record only enhances the fact that whatever triggered the explosion doesn't seem to have been a widespread biological change.

You sound like you're approaching the monolith in this conversation (ha) with talking about "cultural explosion". And as I said at the start of this, I don't view the question as casting doubt on darwinism per se - only that, since the events are mental (cultural), it's inappropriate to look to darwinism for an explanation of what happened. An explanation of what the species was capable of biologically doesn't help here - it just highlights the problem.

The Founders' claim isn't that everyone is equal in ability. It's not a scientific statement, nor meant to be falsifiable.

separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Endowed by a creator? That certainly sounds design *cough* of some sort, or a purposeful existence. Created equal? Not born, but created? There we go again. And what's more, they hold these truths to be self-evident - they're claiming evidence of these things! Well, isn't it a scientific duty to judge on evidence?

Actually, that reading of it would be silly. You CAN read it as making falsifiable claims - the particular style of writing in those portions even invites it - but it's missing the point to do so. Just as, with the constitution, we need a panel of 9 people to sometimes discern what the words mean despite their being clearly written. Kind of embarassing what a person can do with writing they dislike when they have an agenda.

Comment by nullasalus — September 27, 2007 @ 1:00 pm

Thought Provoker Says:
September 27th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Hi Bradford,

You wrote…

I'm not arguing with this but would hasten to point out that the news article you referenced entails a boundary violation of NOMA and a near violation of the separation clause as well. I do not know if fmm's assessment of your part in this is correct because you have reported rather than commented on the article AFAIK.

Good observations.

No, I have not rendered an opinon on the situation.

and yes, I realise this deals with the gray area of issues I often present in black and white terms.

If I wanted safe comfortable confirmations of my presumption, do you think I would be posting at Telic Thoughts?

Comment by Thought Provoker — September 27, 2007 @ 1:01 pm

Joy Says:
September 27th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
All this talk about "what happened to humans" ~50Kya is pretty scattered. I don't have the links handy right now (and am too busy to go looking), but at ARN a few years ago and I think here there has been some discussion of human brain evolution making some points that the NDS supporters have not seriously attempted to deal with.

1. "Cultural evolution" is not the same thing as RM-NS. The plasticity, learning capabilities, creativity, resiliance and adaptability of human beings is directly related to their intelligence, but not necessarily to their brain size or pre-set organizational parameters.

2. The physical limitations on brain size have obtained for humans and like-kin for as long as they've existed on this planet. If infant heads get too big to be born, you don't get an evolutionary leap - you get extinction of a population. This was partly rectified early on by delayed development (skull bones don't fuse until after birth, brain development continues as well).

3. No NDS'er has ever explained the notable linkage between infant skull size and female pelvic structure that goes hand-in-hand (or head-in-pelvis) for the development of big-headed primates. Sure, it MUST come paired or the moms will simply die along with the big-headed babies. But how is that skeletal structuring linked, why the directed mutation events in both at the same time, and there are significant sex-related issues here as well as developmental ones.

I've had DDs back out entirely on these issues, a couple even complaining that you can't really apply the base theoretics to human beings anyway. Maybe because we're not natural? I don't know.

I know that gorillas and chimps can't give live vaginal birth to a human baby, even if that baby's a girl (smaller head). I know that despite the fact that my head is quite small (can't get a hat that fits), I'm 'officially' smarter than 9 out of 10 men on this planet no matter how big their heads are. I also know that much of the skeletal changes that allow for human women to give birth to big-headed babies don't happen until she's pregnant (no matter how wide those hips got when she hit puberty). Obviously an epigenetic process, NOT a mutational one.

It seems to me that one of these days the NDS'ers are going to have to try and explain the genetic-epigenetic linkage in the oddities of human physiology too. If they can.

Comment by Joy — September 27, 2007 @ 2:52 pm

fifth monarchy man Says:
September 27th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
Zach:

Your refusal to believe that Special Creation was a commonly held belief is irrelevant. Closing your eyes is not an argument.

When did I imply that I did not believe in special creation? all of us fundamentalists believe in special creation it's just that none of us believe that Adam was created in a way that "appears to be akin to molding clay."

"¦..theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals

I also don't believe that man is descended from lower animals.

This belief does not preclude Adam's being born in the usual way.

Scripture records another instance of a man being born born in the usual way who was not descended from his apparent ancestors(at least not on his fathers side).

Such a thing is not beyond the realm of possibility for my God. and is not contary to a literal reading of the text.

Peace

Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 27, 2007 @ 5:18 pm

keiths Says:
September 27th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
5mm wrote:

I also don't believe that man is descended from lower animals.

This belief does not preclude Adam's being born in the usual way.

Interesting. Who do you believe was Adam's mother?

Comment by keiths — September 27, 2007 @ 6:11 pm

fifth monarchy man Says:
September 27th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
Hey Keith's

I don't have a clue I don't even know if he had a mother the text is silent here. I was only speculating as to different interpretations of the text.

I suppose if this particular speculation were correct she would be a anatomically modern human without the capacity for language

I guess I should explain my "I don't believe humans are descended fro lower animals comment." I meant it in the way that designer bacteria are not descended from their wild predecessors.

Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 27, 2007 @ 6:28 pm

keiths Says:
September 27th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Joy wrote:

I also know that much of the skeletal changes that allow for human women to give birth to big-headed babies don't happen until she's pregnant (no matter how wide those hips got when she hit puberty). Obviously an epigenetic process, NOT a mutational one.

Joy,

There appear to be two confusions wrapped up in those two sentences:

1. Nobody thinks that the normal morphological changes during pregnancy are due to a mutational process in the female. The dichotomy is epigenetic vs. genetic, not epigenetic vs. mutational.

2. You seem to be saying that a change which does not occur during maturation, but instead is triggered by pregnancy, must be epigenetic. Why? NDE has no problem with the idea that states like pregnancy can alter the patterns of gene expression.

Comment by keiths — September 27, 2007 @ 6:31 pm

stunney Says:
September 27th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
fifth monarchy man:

I don't have a clue I don't even know if he had a mother the text is silent here. I was only speculating as to different interpretations of the text.

I suppose if this particular speculation were correct she would be a anatomically modern human without the capacity for language

Quite so.

Where does Genesis say that there were no human bodies prior to the first human persons? It doesn't, does it?

The conflation of these concepts—human body and human person—simply betrays unwarranted materialist assumptions.

I guess I should explain my "I don't believe humans are descended fro lower animals comment." I meant it in the way that designer bacteria are not descended from their wild predecessors.

Anatomically modern human bodies have existed for much longer than human persons. Hence I presume there were enough such bodies around for the first human persons to mate with, and that is how human persons multiplied, eventually become the only occupiers of human bodies.

Is that how you see it? Or do you think Genesis implies bodily novelty too?

Comment by stunney — September 27, 2007 @ 7:35 pm

Zachriel Says:
September 27th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
nullasalus: There is no evidence of a sudden widespread mutation 50ky ago that resulted in the cultural and mental changes that have so far been documented.

That is incorrect. There is evidence of rapid evolution of genes involved in brain development, including in recent geological history.

nullasalus: And as I said at the start of this, I don't view the question as casting doubt on darwinism per se - only that, since the events are mental (cultural), it's inappropriate to look to darwinism for an explanation of what happened.

Most of the change in human culture is certainly not due to underlying biological changes. But that is not to say there were not essential genetic changes that led to the initial explosion of human culture (perhaps associated with language and abstraction). There is evidence of common descent and a long evolutionary development of cognitive functions.

nullasalus: Endowed by a creator? That certainly sounds design *cough* of some sort, or a purposeful existence. Created equal? Not born, but created?

You asked if 'All men are created equal' a falsifiable statement? It was not presented literally, is not a falsifable statement, nor was it presented as one.

nullasalus: And what's more, they hold these truths to be self-evident - they're claiming evidence of these things!

self-evident: evident without proof or reasoning

Comment by Zachriel — September 27, 2007 @ 7:49 pm