----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 25 Jun 1999 09:40:01 -0000
From: evolution-digest-owner@udomo.calvin.edu (evolution-digest)
Subject: evolution-digest V1 #1501
evolution-digest Friday, June 25 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1501
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 13:45:11 GMT
From: "David J. Tyler" <D.Tyler@mmu.ac.uk>
Subject: RE: Are apologists irreducibly dense?
On Mon, 21 Jun 1999, Glenn Morton wrote:
> When it comes to books, it is very important for the publisher to look
> at what will sell. Their job is to make money.
Many (most?) publishers are concerned about their image. They will
not carry titles/authors whose work is perceived as a threat to that
image. This is where the "establishment" concept comes into play.
[snip]
> As to the usefulness of challenging, I still challenge the validity of
> all other apologetical paradigms(they all are falsified by observational
> data), and if I can think of a better paradigm than the one I now
> advocate, I will challenge mine also. Christians have got to realize
> that challenges to a paradigm are good.
The principle of exposing ones ideas to challenges has got to be
right. A challenge can stimulate clearer thought and can lead to
progress in understanding. There are probably some other less
beneficial possible outcomes (misunderstandings, seemingly
endless controversy, personal animosity, party spirit, the
development of "establishment" positions, etc).
Just as Christians should see challenges to their paradigm as
potentially good, so also should others. The challenges may be at
the metaphysical level (Christianity, naturalism, post-modernism,
etc) and also at higher levels (Darwinism, protein-first abiogenesis,
etc). "Establishment" positions can operate at these levels as well.
How have neo-Darwinists reacted to the not inconsiderable challenge
to their position? Do we really see a welcome to stimulating debate?
I hasten to add that some do. William Provine has, in the past,
involved Phillip Johnson in his undergraduate classes: he welcomed
the challenge and thought it would do his students a lot of good.
> Unfortunately, we all act as if
> a rejection of the paradigm each of us personally holds means a
> rejection of the Bible itself. It is this attititude, (that ones own
> interpretation is the only divinely inspired interpretation ) that
> causes so many problems among Christians. And it is for this reason that
> I believe that the title of this thread should be changed to the one
> above.
There's a lot of common ground here. I think Phil Johnson's approach
is one we can all learn from: he does not set out to "win" an
argument, but to open people to alternative ways of addressing issues
and stimulating a broader spirit of enquiry. Let's have more of this
- - - and then maybe we'll have fewer crusading apologists coming at us
with flawed arguments.
Best regards,
David J. Tyler.
- ------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 08:54:10 -0400
From: "Howard J. Van Till" <110661.1365@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: MN - limitation of science or limitation on reality?
Susan wrote:
"You mean Genesis will be rewritten in order to conform with observed
reality? I hadn't realized that was possible! I thought creationists were=
busily trying to change reality to fit Genesis."
When speaking of theists whose picture of the universe's formational
history places especial emphasis on the (presumed) need for a succession =
of
episodes of irruptive, form-imposing interventions by a Creator, I use th=
e
term 'episodic creationist.' This broad category includes young-earth
special creationists, old-earth special creationists, progressive
creationists and most proponents of Intelligent Design (whose concept of
'design' is based on the artisan metaphor) .
Presuming that by 'creationists' Susan means 'episodic creationists,' I
agree that many of them appear to be "busily trying to change reality to
fit [their reading of] Genesis [as a very succinct chronicle of the
universe's formational history]." I consider this to be a tragic waste of=
effort by talented people.
Although I count myself to be a full member of the Christian community, I=
find that particular reading of Genesis 1-3 to be wholly inappropriate, o=
ne
that draws attention away from its profoundly theological agenda. I suppo=
se
that it could be rewritten in a conceptual vocabulary that includes moder=
n
scientific cosmology and biological evolution, but since the essential
thesis is theological rather than scientific, perhaps very little would b=
e
gained.
Howard J. Van Till
- ------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 09:59:43 EDT
From: Bertvan@aol.com
Subject: RE: science can study the effect of an Intelligent Designer on the natural world
Pim said,
Still avoiding the issue that we have something to compare it against. How do
you expect to find design in nature and distinguish it from apparant design?
What about the witch circle? Mushrooms which grow in a circle. Design? Or
apparant design
Hi Pim,
You speak of "apparent design". I don't want to misrepresent your position,
so is this a fair statement of it?
You now recognize something called "apparent design". You don't know where
this "apparent design" originated, but you can state with certainty it wasn't
created by intelligence.
Sincerely trying to understand, Bertvan
- ------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 08:49:29 -0700
From: Pim van Meurs <entheta@eskimo.com>
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?RE=3A_science_can_study_the_effect_of_an_Intell?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?igent_Designer_on_the=09natural_world?=
Pim said,
Still avoiding the issue that we have something to compare it against. How do
you expect to find design in nature and distinguish it from apparant design?
What about the witch circle? Mushrooms which grow in a circle. Design? Or
apparant design
Hi Pim,
You speak of "apparent design". I don't want to misrepresent your position,
so is this a fair statement of it?
Bertvan: You now recognize something called "apparent design". You don't know where
this "apparent design" originated, but you can state with certainty it wasn't
created by intelligence.
Yep. I also gave an example. We see something that appears to be designed, how do we know it truely was designed?
- ------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 17:04:17 GMT
From: "David J. Tyler" <D.Tyler@mmu.ac.uk>
Subject: RE: Two Complementary faces of establishment science
Pim van Meurs wrote on Wed, 23 Jun 1999:
> DT: In this area, it is Darwinists
> who are muddying the waters! My agument here is for consistency.
>
> Pim: I agree. But they are only human.
Interesting! I hope we are not seeing a hint of double standards
here.
> DT: In a way, I agree with the Darwinian authors of the letter to Nature.
> Where I disagree with them is that this Darwinian position is the
> only one that is acceptable in the academic community.
>
> Any scientific explanation which does a better job at explaining the observations of evolutions would be acceptable.
But if intelligent causation is part of the explanation, some will
rule this as unacceptable. This brings us full circle in the
argument.
Best regards,
David J. Tyler.
- ------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 12:32:26 EDT
From: Bertvan@aol.com
Subject: RE:_science_can_study_the_effect_of_an_Intelligent_Designer_on_the natural_world
Hi Pim,
I said:
>>You speak of "apparent design". I don't want to misrepresent your
position,
>>so is this a fair statement of it?
>>You now recognize something called "apparent design". You don't know where
>>this "apparent design" originated, but you can state with certainty it
wasn't
>>created by intelligence.
Pim:
>Yep. I also gave an example. We see something that appears to be designed,
>how do we know it truely was designed?
Hi Pim,
If it looked designed, I'd assume it was --until I had evidence it was the
result of random processes. True, rocks and mountains sometimes appear to
resemble something unrelated, and common sense tells us the resemblance was
accidental. However random processes can rarely be proved. I assume
everything which looked was designed. Perhaps your "common sense" tells you
anything not manufactured by humans is not designed. My "common sense" tells
me differently. Does your "common sense" have some sort of priority?
Are you defining design as describing only those artifacts which are
manufactured by humans? As for the "apparent design" which I see in nature,
like you, I have no idea how it originated. Unlike you, I can't state with
certainty it is not the result of any kind of intelligence. Again, are you
defining intelligence as some trait common only to humans. (And other
organisms to a lesser degree)? Personally, I would define intelligence as
the ability to create order or rational designs, make rational
choices--whatever it's source. I suggest humans posses the ability to some
degree, but I wouldn't suggest intelligence, an abstract quality, couldn't
exist in the absence of humans.
If we get our definitions straightened out, and we still have an area of
disagreement (I suspect we would), do you agree that legitimate differences
of opinion can exist between intellignt people?
Bertvan
- ------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 09:44:49 PDT
From: Jason Bode <jason_bode@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: science can study the effect of an Intelligent Designer on the natural world (was MN...))
Pim,
>>SJ: The fact is that this "cruelty to each other and a callous >>neglect"
>>has escalated as society becomes less Christian and more >>materialistic.
>Unsupported assertion and unproven correlation. Dear Stephen, your >faith
>needs some backing up with reality. Until then your unsupported >assertions
>are worth little more than the paper they are written on.
Since they were written on a computer ... hmmmm ... ;)
>What about the killing of abortionists by Christians ? What about the
> >massacres in Serbia?
What about the abortions themselves? I'll say the killing of abortion
doctors by people who called themselves Christians was wrong, but I'll also
say that abortion is just as wrong. And what about the massacres in Serbia?
Are Christians responsible for them? How about the problems there've been in
Ethiopia and Eritrea? Or Rwanda? Iraq? India and Pakistan?
>Christianity hardly has a reason to be proud of its track record and
> >certainly there is no proof that christianity is more moral or that a
> >christian society is more moral than a non-christian one. In fact, >the
>Netherlands which is far less religious than the US has a far >better track
>record.
Prove it. You're trying to use specific occurrences that seem to support
your point. Prove that Christianity shouldn't be proud of its track record.
I agree there have been some problems stemming from it before, but prove
this is a 'track record'? Where are your facts about how religious each
country is? Did you ask a significant % of the population whether they were
religious or not? Did someone else?
>Perhaps you should consider trying to get some facts?
Remember that yourself.
_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
- ------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 09:45:10 PDT
From: Jason Bode <jason_bode@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: science can study the effect of an Intelligent Designer on the natural world (was MN...))
Pim,
>>SJ: The fact is that this "cruelty to each other and a callous >>neglect"
>>has escalated as society becomes less Christian and more >>materialistic.
>Unsupported assertion and unproven correlation. Dear Stephen, your >faith
>needs some backing up with reality. Until then your unsupported >assertions
>are worth little more than the paper they are written on.
Since they were written on a computer ... hmmmm ... ;)
>What about the killing of abortionists by Christians ? What about the
> >massacres in Serbia?
What about the abortions themselves? I'll say the killing of abortion
doctors by people who called themselves Christians was wrong, but I'll also
say that abortion is just as wrong. And what about the massacres in Serbia?
Are Christians responsible for them? How about the problems there've been in
Ethiopia and Eritrea? Or Rwanda? Iraq? India and Pakistan?
>Christianity hardly has a reason to be proud of its track record and
> >certainly there is no proof that christianity is more moral or that a
> >christian society is more moral than a non-christian one. In fact, >the
>Netherlands which is far less religious than the US has a far >better track
>record.
Prove it. You're trying to use specific occurrences that seem to support
your point. Prove that Christianity shouldn't be proud of its track record.
I agree there have been some problems stemming from it before, but prove
this is a 'track record'? Where are your facts about how religious each
country is? Did you ask a significant % of the population whether they were
religious or not? Did someone else?
>Perhaps you should consider trying to get some facts?
Remember that yourself.
_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
- ------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 10:42:28 -0700
From: "Chris Cogan" <ccogan@sfo.com>
Subject: Re: science can study the effect of an Intelligent Designer on the natural world (was MN...))
>Reflectorites
>
>On Mon, 21 Jun 1999 21:07:07 -0500 (CDT), Susan B wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>SJ>Let there be mo misunderstanding ID does not just claim that "some
>>>pattern in the natural world...is an effect of an Intelligent Designer."
ID
>>>claims that the *whole* "natural world...is an effect of an Intelligent
>>>Designer"!
>
>SB>the only way we are currently able to detect design is against a back
drop
>>of the natural world. Design does not resemble the natural world and
>>therefore we can distinguish it. (That's how Paley was able to see the
>>design in the watch and distinguish it from an undesigned starfish). If
the
>>natural world is designed, then we have no way to detect it, since we have
>>nothing to compare it to.
>
>This is plain false. Design can be superimposed on a backdrop of design
>and still be detected as different. For example, a work of art can be
>distinguished against a designed art gallery wall. Da Vinci's "Last Supper"
>is actually part of a wall!
CC
And, how do we know this, if not from the fact that we know enough about
human design from other experience?
But, the point is, detecting something as different and detecting something
as design are two different things. Detecting DESIGN obviously requires more
than just detecting DIFFERENCE.
SJ
>Human intelligent design can be recognised against a backdrop of God's
>natural design. For example flowers spelling out words of a sign:
>
>"Because mind or intelligent design is a necessary cause of an informative
>system,
CC
This is, except in a trivial and irrelevant sense, demonstrably false.
Meyer (continuing):
>one can detect the past action of an intelligent cause from the
>presence of an information-intensive effect, even if the cause itself
cannot
>be directly observed. Since information requires an intelligent source, the
>flowers spelling "Welcome to Victoria" in the gardens of Victoria harbor
>lead visitors to infer the activity of intelligent agents even if they did
not see
>the flowers planted and arranged." (Meyer S.C., "The Message in the
>Microcosm: DNA and the Death of Materialism." Access Research
>Network, 1998. http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_message.htm)
CC
Again, this is possible only because we ALREADY know about human design (and
language) and flowers. We know that flowers do not naturally arrange
themselves to form words. But, if we did not know either of these things
(and English), "Welcome to Victoria" would be just another arrangement of
flowers.
Meyer is also confusing an "informative system" with "linguistic system."
Genes, animal "design," etc., are not linguistic. A footprint in sand is
informative, but it is not linguistic. Are all footprints, as such,
necessarily designed? Do they require an intelligent source? I think not.
The image formed on Polaroid film of a rock: Does that information about the
rock require an intelligent source? Is the rock an intelligent source?
No. Information requires causation, and that's about it. "Welcome to
Victoria" is information of a very special kind. When Meyer finds the Bible
unequivocally and uniquely encoded in the genes of a crawdad, in King James
English, let me know; THEN I'll be impressed.
Meyers is simply demonstrating his ignorance of both evolution and
information
SJ
>Therefore, there is no reason in principle why God's supernatural design
>could not be detected against a backdrop of God's natural design.
CC
Again, assuming we had prior knowledge of God's way of designing things to
use as a means of detecting his design at all (as we do with walls and
paintings ON walls). But, that would beg the question. How do you get out of
the question-begging circle?
>>SJ>What will happen if "Intelligent Design" can be established
scientifically is
>>>unclear. No one in the ID movement thinks it will make everybody become
>>>Christians. It might even help New Age and pantheistic type religions. In
>>>pre-Darwinian England and USA, a lot of intellectuals believed in design
>>>but were Deists. But there is no doubt that the re-establishment of
design
>>>would also help Christianity enormously.
>
>SB>so you intend to use it as a recruiting tool. That's not a huge
surprise.
SJ
>That goes without saying! I see ID as part of Christian apologetics, which
>itself is pre-evangelistic.
CC
Ah, but what if the design turns out to be design by a mere alien race? What
then? Will this help your cause? Remember, if we ARE designed, this is by
far the more likely type of designer we will find, since it is at least
logically possible, it is non-transcendant, and we are not too far from
being able to do such design ourselves.
Or, what if the design turns out to be performed by Susan's White Buffalo
Calf Woman?
Assuming we can truly confirm design, what's to ensure that it will be
design that will serve YOUR purposes rather than those of some Muslim or the
Calf Woman worshipper. What if it just shows that we and our "universe" were
just created by technologically sophisticated children in another
"universe"?
<snip>
- ------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 14:26:01 -0700
From: Brian D Harper <bharper@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: Re: Finely Tuned Razors, Bridges, and Flies [was Re: Snicker
This will be my last message before signing off for awhile.
Be back around July 6.
At 08:59 PM 6/22/99 -0500, Glenn wrote:
>Brian Harper wrote:
>>>I think the confusion here results from the
>common association of fine-tuning with probability arguments.
>But fine-tuning itself does not rely on probability calculations.
>So, I think its best to say that the many worlds hypothesis provides
>a possible explanation for fine-tuning.<<
>
>I have heard this argument before but have found it less than
>convincing. The AP arguments, it seems to me, must be based upon an
>implicit probability argument. Take the nuclear resonance found by
>Hoyle which allowed carbon to be produced in stars. Why is this
>resonance note-worthy? Because of all the other possible configurations
>that COULD HAVE happened. Thus the fact that the precise value required
>for life is what we find in our universe is considered evidence of a
>finely tuned universe. The choice of one out of an innumerable plethora
>of hostile possibilities is what makes the anthropic principle work.
>
>Any comments?
>
Well, I obviously disagree. Unfortunately, one seldom finds a
precise definition of fine-tuning in the literature and one
has to read between the lines. For example, the Sciama paper
I quoted from would be utter nonsense if fine-tuning were
tied to probability calculations.
Briefly looking through my papers on the AP, the closest thing
I found to a definition of fine-tuning is the following from
Leslie
#"Recently, many have argued that either reality as a whole,
#or else the spatiotemporal region which we can see, is
#"fine-tuned" to life's needs, by which they mean that tiny
#changes in its basic properties would have excluded life
#forms of any kind. (Talk of "fine-tuning" does not presuppose
#a divine fine-tuner.)"
# -- John Leslie "Introduction" to <Physical Cosmology and
#Philosophy>, edited by Leslie, Macmillan, New York, 1990.
One of the things I do for a living is to try to develop
models. Leslie's definition of fine-tuning fits
perfectly with the way I would use the term in my own
work. Suppose I have some model Y which I want to produce
some response X (X in my case would usually be to fit
some data sets X1, X2, X3 etc. obtained in various special
cases). The model has several parameters a,b,c,d....
Parameter c, say, would be finely tuned wrt X if it must
fall in some very narrow range in order for Y-->X. I
would say c is finely tuned regardless of how it is obtained.
Probability doesn't have anything to do with it, unless
I were to make some bold claim that I had determined c
by picking numbers at random ;-).
Now let me go back to your final statement:
"The choice of one out of an innumerable plethora
of hostile possibilities is what makes the anthropic
principle work." -- Glenn
Not really. The main point I believe is the fine-tuning
as defined above combined with the appearance that the
laws of physics care about whether there is or isn't
life. Recall Sciama's comment:
"These finely tuned properties will probably also eventually
be accounted for by fundamental theory. But why should fundamental
theory _happen_ to lead to these properties?" -- D. Sciama
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
The Ohio State University
"All kinds of private metaphysics and theology have
grown like weeds in the garden of thermodynamics"
- - -- E. H. Hiebert
- ------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 12:30:29 PDT
From: Jason Bode <jason_bode@hotmail.com>
Subject: sorry
Sorry for the double post earlier today folks.
Jason
_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
- ------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 22:22:31 +0800
From: "Stephen Jones" <sejones@ibm.net>
Subject: Re: More balance on claimed Neandertal-Modern
Reflectorites
On Tue, 22 Jun 1999 19:44:48 -0500, Glenn Morton wrote:
SJ>Here is a Science News article at:
>http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc99/5_8_99/fob7.htm
>which casts a bit more balance on the recent story about a claimed
>Neandertal-Modern Human hybrid.
>
>After examining the evidence, neither Stringer nor Schwartz are
>convinced that the skeleton is anything more than an "unusually stocky modern
>human".
GM>I am always amused when someone uses the term balanced. It has been my
>observation that when someone says a report is balanced, it usually
>means that it isn't as bad for my side as other reports were.
No doubt. But the fact is that the "other reports" weren't "bad" for
the Out-of-Africa hypothesis (OoAH) side either. But this report is a
little better for it.
GM>It also amuses me that anti-evolutionists like Steve fight had to make
>Neanderthal something other than us.
Glenn makes it sound like its an uphill battle. I don't see it that way
at all. Every round to date has been won by the Out-of-Africa hypothesis,
and if this turns out to be a Neandertal-CroMagnon hybrid, it will be
a minor exception that proves the rule.
GM>If anti-evolutionists would
>include Neanderthal within the human family, they could easily claim
>that since they can breed with us, there really hasn't been any evoution
>at all--just microevolution.
I've got news for Glenn. I don't believe there has been any "microevolution"
either! It is *all* Mediate Creation.
GM>For anti-evolutionists to fight tooth and
>nail to avoid having to include fossil man seem counterproductive for
>their postiion.
See above. If there is any "tooth and nail" fighting it is on the side of
advocates for the Multiregional/Regional Continuity (MR/RCH) hypothesis.
The OoAH is now firmly established, and it is unlikely that the MR/RCH
will make much of a dent in it. If this fossil turns out to be a hybrid, it will
show how rare the interbreeding was. And since most (all?) hybrids are
sterile, it would mean that neandertals contributed nothing to the modern
human gene pool.
GM>While as of this moment, the technical report of the prospective hybrid
>has yet to be published, and thus we don't know its real place yet as
>only some people have seen the evidence. And your article did note that
>some anthropologists were convinced by the data.
Presumably they were all MR/RCH advocates. I would be more impressed if
any OoAH people switched camps on the basis of this evidence.
GM>As to the rejection of Schwartz and Stringer, that was almost to be
>expected. If Chris Stringer and Jeffrey Schwartz accepted it, almst
>everything they had ever written in their careers would be wrong.
Not really, in the reports I have seen Stringer was prepared to accept
it if it is confirmed. He has written a lot more than just the OoAH. He is
already an eminent paleoanthropologist and even if this was a Neandertal-
CroMagnon hybrid, it would make no difference to the main lines of the
OoAH.
GM>I would also point out a disturbing sequence of events. Your report, dated
>May 8, says that Trinkaus reported the result in a meeting the week of
>May 1. Stringer had not seen the data until that meeting.
Where does Glenn get that from? See below.
GM>But on April
>25, Stringer told the AP PRIOR to the May 1st meeting, "Dr. Chris
>Stringer, an expert on Neanderthals at the Museum of Natural History in
>London, who is a leader of the out-of-Africa forces, said that he was
>willing to consider the Portuguese findings with an open mind. He told
>The Associated Press that the current evidence was not sufficient to
>convince him of Dr. Trinkhaus's hybrid interpretation." John Noble, New
>York Times, April 25, 1999
>http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/042599sci-human-fossil.html
>
>The original AP report was on the 16th of April so long before Stringer
>had seen the data, he was rejecting it. Don't blame him if it would mean
>that everything he has written about Neanderthal would be wrong.
>
>So before he had even seen the data, Stringer was telling the press that
>the data was insufficient to convince him. That sounds quite the
>opposite of an open mind.
Glenn should make sure of his facts before he starts casting aspersions.
As the Science News article I posted said, the fact is that the fossil
was actually found in *November 1998*:
"Last Nov. 28, archaeologists working in Portugal's Lapedo Valley, 90
miles north of Lisbon, chanced upon a child's burial. At first the
researchers, led by Joao Zilhao of the Portuguese Institute of Archaeology
in Lisbon, viewed the 24,500-year-old skeleton as an example of modern
Homo sapiens."
Chris Stringer is one of the world's greatest authorities on European
hominoid fossils. It would be *amazing* if the first he knew about the
fossil was not until 6 months later. After all Trinkaus was told about it.
I would be surprised in this day of email if there was not an informal
(or even formal) `grapevine' of all these paleoanthropologists.
GM>Now, I just looked at the PNAS web page and found that the article has
>been published in the June 22 edition. Here is the abstract:
Thanks to Glenn for this.
GM>Vol. 96, Issue 13, 7604-7609, June 22, 1999
>
>Anthropology
>The early Upper Paleolithic human skeleton from
>the Abrigo do Lagar Velho (Portugal) and modern
>human emergence in Iberia
[...]
GM>Contributed by Erik Trinkaus, April 26, 1999
>
>The discovery of an early Upper Paleolithic human burial at the Abrigo
>do Lagar Velho, Portugal, has provided evidence of early modern humans
>from southern Iberia. The remains, the largely complete skeleton of a
>4-year-old child buried with pierced shell and red ochre, is dated to
>ca. 24,500 years B.P. The cranium, mandible, dentition, and postcrania
>present a mosaic of European early modern human and Neandertal
>features.
>The temporal bone has an intermediate-sized juxtamastoid eminence. The
>mandibular mentum osseum and the dental size and proportions, supported
>by mandibular ramal features, radial tuberosity orientation, and
>diaphyseal curvature, as well as the pubic proportions align the
>skeleton with early modern humans.
So far so good!
GM>Body proportions, reflected in
>femorotibial lengths and diaphyseal robusticity plus tibial condylar
>displacement, as well as mandibular symphyseal retreat and
>thoracohumeral muscle insertions, align the skeleton with the
>Neandertals.
It will be interesting to see how specifically Neandertaloid these features
are. Presumably Stringer and Schwartz and the other unconvined
paleoanthroplogists are aware of it and do not find it compelling. The latest
New Scientist, says:
"But Stringer cautions against reading too much into this one discovery. "If
the skeleton is that of a hybrid, it [still] cannot answer the questions of how
common such matings were, whether hybrids were fertile and whether their
genes ever penetrated into early modern populations," he says. And despite
recent revelations, the DNA evidence still suggests that interbreeding
cannot have been widespread. "The evidence does fit with Neanderthals
representing a deep and separate lineage to that of all modern humans," he
says." (Norris S., "Family Secrets," New Scientist, Vol. 162, No 2191, 19
June 1999, p44)
GM>This morphological mosaic indicates admixture between
>regional Neandertals and early modern humans dispersing into southern
>Iberia. It establishes the complexities of the Late Pleistocene
>emergence of modern humans and refutes strict replacement models of
>modern human origins.
If it only "indicates" it, it hardly "establishes" it!
[...]
GM>Now, I would like to point out that in my note to the reflecton on April
>24, 1999, I
>(http://www.calvin.edu/archive/evolution/199904/0260.html) mentioned
>that:
>
>"Neanderthal muscle attachments were different than ours.
>They were extremely strong and some people believe that this evolved in
>response to the way they hunted big game (by getting them to charge and
>at the last minute stepping aside and grabbing the animals fur and
>using short knives to stab the animal and the Neanderthal was carried
>along).
>
>No anatomically modern human has Neanderthal-type muscle attachments.
>If this boy had those types of attachements, then he was a hybrid, no
>doubt."
>
>Trinkaus et al are reporting that this child INDEED HAD SOME OF THE
>CHARACTERISTICALLY NEANDERTHAL MUSCLE ATTACHMENTS!!!!!!
>
>This child is a hybrid.
Glenn is going beyond the evidence. It does not actually say that these
were "characteristically neandertal muscle attachments." If these muscle
attachments really were unique to neandertals then Stringer (who is a
world authority on Neandertals), Schwartz and the other anthropologists
and would not still be unconvinced.
But having said all that, I personally am open to the possibility that
these muscle attachments *could* be uniquely diagnostic of neandertals
and hence that this *could* turn out to be a Neandertal-CroMagnon hybrid.
But even if this were the case, I would not attach a great deal of
importance to it. If Neandertal features can show up in a CroMagnon
body, then where are all the other examples? At best it would show
that Neandertals and CroMagnons rarely interbred, even though they
could. That would underline the very real differences between
Neandertals and early modern humans, and would really represent the
last hurrah of the Multiregional/Regional Continuity hypotheses.
of the effects of the Fall, assuming that it occurred in Asia Minor
at the root of all fully (not just anatomically) modern humans. Indeed,
it would be a lesson that we Biblical Christians need to follow
conservative evangelical theologian/philosopher Carl Henry's sage
advice and not put too much store on the *physical* differences
between ourselves and other hominids:
"Perhaps we are not to rule out dogmatically the possibility that the
dust of man's origin may have been animated, since the animals
before man appear to have been fashioned from the earth (Gen. 1:24).
The Bible does not explicate man's physical origin in detail. The fact
that, after Genesis 1:1 the narrator deals with a mediate creation,
which involves the actualizing of potentialities latent in the original
creation, should caution us against the one-sided invocation of divine
transcendence. The new levels of being arise with quite obvious
dependence on the lower in the creation account. Yet man's
disjunction from the animals appears specific enough...
Be that as it may, it is the ethico-religious fact about man which
marks him off most conspicuously from the animals. Only an age
secular in spirit could concentrate its interest in Homo on
morphological structure seeking to understand man's origin and
nature by focusing solely on prehuman and sub-human forms, then
naming man for the brute, and finding his imago at last among the
beasts."
(Henry C.F.H., "Science and Religion," in Henry C.F.H., ed.,
"Contemporary Evangelical Thought: A Survey", 1968, p282)
Steve
- - --------------------------------------------------------------------
"I well remember how the synthetic theory beguiled me with its unifying power
when I was a graduate student in the mid-1960's. Since then I have been watching
it slowly unravel as a universal description of evolution. The molecular assault
came first, followed quickly by renewed attention to unorthodox theories of
speciation and by challenges at the level of macroevolution itself. I have been
reluctant to admit it-since beguiling is often forever-but if Mayr's characterization
of the synthetic theory is accurate, then that theory, as a general proposition, is
effectively dead, despite its persistence as textbook orthodoxy." (Gould S.J., "Is a
new and general theory of evolution emerging?", Paleobiology, vol. 6(1), January
1980, p120)
- - --------------------------------------------------------------------
- ------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 22:59:56 +0800
From: "Stephen Jones" <sejones@ibm.net>
Subject: Re: It all fits...
Reflectorites
Here is a recent New Scientist article at:
http://www.newscientist.com/ns/19990619/news.html
which indicates there is a fine-tuning argument for design in the fact that
the Sun and moon have roughly the same apparent size in the sky and the
Earth, making perfect solar eclipses possible. The moon is the only one
among our solar systems 64 other moons which can make solar eclipses
visible from its planet.
Apparently for life to be viable, it needs a Sun our size, the distance
away it is, and an Earth and moon the size and distance apart they are:
"At the same time our existence depends on an unusually large moon since
its pull stops the Earth wobbling around too much on its axis and causing
wild and catastrophic swings in climate like those on Mars. Our Moon,
which is unusually large compared to those in almost all other planet-moon
systems, probably formed from molten material blasted from the Earth
during the impact of a giant body more than 4 billion years ago."
The article concludes:
"If Gonzalez is right, then all extraterrestrials, wherever they are, are likely
to live on planets like ours that experience total eclipses. But since an
unusually large Moon is rare, he says, this suggests that both ETs and total
eclipses are very rare indeed."
Steve
- - -----------------------------------------------------------------------
[Archive: 19 June 1999]
It all fits...
Marcus Chown WHY DOES THE MOON look the same size as the Sun in
the sky? This coincidence, which makes the spectacle of total eclipses
possible, has been crying out for an explanation. Now an astronomer in
Seattle has proposed one. If he's right, there is a surprising connection
between the conditions required for a total eclipse and for the emergence of
intelligent life.
The coincidence in the apparent sizes of the Moon and the Sun occurs
because the Sun, though 400 times bigger than the Moon, is also 400 times
farther away. In fact, the Moon sometimes looks a shade bigger than the
Sun, which is essential for a "perfect eclipse" when the sky is dark enough
for you to see the Sun's faint outer atmosphere, or corona.
Because tidal effects cause the Moon to slowly recede from the Earth,
perfect eclipses have been visible only for about 150 million years and will
continue for only another 150 million years, about 5 per cent of the current
age of the Earth. Furthermore, Earth is the only planet in our Solar System
where a perfect eclipse is visible, although there are 64 other moons.
So are we just extraordinarily lucky? Guillermo Gonzalez of the University
of Washington in Seattle thinks not. He points out that our distance from
the Sun, and hence its apparent size, is a necessary condition for us to be
here. "If we were a little nearer or farther from the Sun, the Earth would be
too hot or too cold and so uninhabitable," says Gonzalez.
At the same time our existence depends on an unusually large moon since
its pull stops the Earth wobbling around too much on its axis and causing
wild and catastrophic swings in climate like those on Mars. Our Moon,
which is unusually large compared to those in almost all other planet-moon
systems, probably formed from molten material blasted from the Earth
during the impact of a giant body more than 4 billion years ago.
In the current issue of Astronomy & Geophysics (vol 40, p 3.18), Gonzalez
points out that the way the Moon formed means it started off very close to
the Earth and has taken several billion years to move far enough away until
it precisely covers the Sun during an eclipse. "The timescale is very similar
to that of the appearance of intelligent life," he says. "It is therefore not
such a big coincidence that we are around at the time when it is possible to
see total eclipses."
Gonzalez's explanation has generated much interest among astronomers,
though most remain cautious. "The timescale argument of Gonzalez needs
more checking," says John Barrow of the University of Sussex.
If Gonzalez is right, then all extraterrestrials, wherever they are, are likely
to live on planets like ours that experience total eclipses. But since an
unusually large Moon is rare, he says, this suggests that both ETs and total
eclipses are very rare indeed.
[...]
(c) Copyright New Scientist, RBI Limited 1999
- - --------------------------------------------------------------------
"All that is made seems planless to the darkened mind, because there are
more plans than it looked for. In these seas there are islands where the hairs
of the turf are so fine and so closely woven together that unless a man
looked long at them he would see neither hairs nor weaving at all, but only
the same and the flat. So with the Great Dance. Set your eyes on one
movement and it will lead you through all patterns and it will seem to you
the master movement. But the seeming will be true. Let no mouth open to
gainsay it. There seems no plan because it is all plan: there seems no centre
because it is all centre. Blessed be He!" (Lewis C.S., "Perelandra," The
Bodley Head: London, 1977, p251)
- - --------------------------------------------------------------------
- ------------------------------
End of evolution-digest V1 #1501
********************************
------------------------------
End of evolution-digest V1 #1503
********************************