Re: [asa] Two questions...Ayala's article

Hi,

I don't know quite _where_ to ask my question. But I am bothered
by the notion that some on the list seem to have taken the position
that the human mind's ability to recognize design patterns does not
come from genetics or from nature.
Instead some seem to feel the ability comes from God and is thus
supernatural in origin. That seems to go along with the idea that the
human mind is supernatural in general.

First, a disclaimer. I didnt originate the ideas I am referring to.
List members did that. Second, I'd prefer to focus on the biology, not
on the human mind and other subjects. But, when talking about Adam
and Eve the very nature of what a human being is comes into play. Is
that beyond biology, or not?

I'm not taking any position on this, but I find it interesting as an
idea. The idea that human psychology is a study of the supernatural?
(of a supernatural phenomena as opposed to a natural phenomena?) I
suspect most psychologists would reject that notion. Wouldn't they?

But, if it *were* true, then is it worth asking what folks believe
about the population from whence came the first true humans? Was
this "embellishment" with a supernatural mind (or whatever one would
call it - and I am uncertain as to what the concept should be
labelled) was this embellishment applied to a group (a whole
population), or was it applied to a single pair as some theological
views would claim? If to a single pair, then did the rest of the
population not get it at all? (meaning, perhaps, that the non-humans
in the group did not have a soul? But Adam and Eve did have a soul?)

And the big question is why is this cognitive ability not passed down
genetically? Are any reasons put forth?

One also has to ask whether the ability to recognize design patterns
perhaps precedes the first humans and was in the general population,
or even in the population of non-human primates or even other species.
 Is it really associated only with soulful minds?

I suspect some may think this line of inquiry not worthy of
investigation. But it seems to me that for James's concern to be
addressed one must look at the issue of just what it really is, in
the minds of members, that made modern humans human. At what point did
humans get truly human abilities and even souls? Are souls real? Do
they correlate with cognitive ability? In other words, what criteria
would one use to set aside notions of deism and move toward a
naturalistic theism? The answer to that is surely affected by
whether one believes what one is interacting with across the dinner
table is a supernatural phenomena or a purely natural phenomena.

And again, if the essentials of the human mind don't spring forth from
the genes, then how can science even investigate human origins
whatsoever? Can anyone see why I have difficulty with the list
discussion here at the beginning of 2009?
I am worried about the ASA because it seems the list has stumbled into
territory, both theologically and scientifically, that I had never
even heard of previously.

-Dave

On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 7:46 AM, James Patterson
<james000777@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> David wrote:
>
> -- do you accept the evidence for an old universe and earth?
>
> Yes, absolutely.
>
> If so, aren't you being inconsistent in rejecting the conclusions population
> geneticists draw from the MHC data based on the presumption you've drawn
> from the Bible that there must have been only one pair from whom all present
> humans directly are genetically descended? The YEC's, after all, make
> exactly the same argument about the "days" of creation, the age of the
> earth, and the nature of Noah's flood.
>
> No, I don't think so, not at all. First, and as I said, I don't think MHC
> data should be used much, if at any, for this kind of thing. I am also not
> sure how that ties into the next part of your statement. But the evidence
> for the Big Bang, the age of the universe, the age of the earth, that's all
> "hard" science – physics and cosmology. It is much more defined and clear
> than the biological sciences. It's very hard to argue with mathematical
> equations like those that define our universe. However, the math used in
> Ayala's paper is *much* less clear, and the math used in the entire field of
> population genetics isn't nailed down yet…just look at some of the
> references. We don't understand this field well enough in general, and I
> don't accept or understand the science well enough to take a position that
> it is impossible to have an n=2. I think that some very good evidence for
> their being an n=2 is that is what the Bible tells us, and it seems
> reasonably clear that an n of 2 is what is indicated – I don't see a way
> around that. The strongest argument I see for there being some other answer
> to this is Dick Fischer's argument that it was an n=2, but they were the
> first ancient Hebrews, not the first man. However, I have to state that I
> don't accept that position (although I haven't read his book yet, it's on
> order Dick). The Bible seems generally clear that it refers to the origins
> of mankind – all of mankind.
>
> The essential foundation of my argument is that in general, what the Bible
> says and what science says agree. YOM doesn't mean a literal day. The
> Hebrews didn't mean a global flood. How Genesis is interpreted is obviously
> not easy, and not clear, or we wouldn't be here talking about it.
>
> -- you say, ". . . we see the emergence of man in the correct *general*
> location, from (at least) a small population, sometime in the past." I used
> to find this kind of argument from RTB et al. somewhat persuasive.
>
> However, let's be honest: central Africa is not the same "general location"
> as Mesopotamia,
>
> Yes, it is. First off, I think it' East Africa. But I'm not going to split
> hairs. And even if you draw that circle down to Tanzania and Ethiopia, it's
> still in the same general location. We do not understand mans origins well
> enough to put him in anything other than Africa. That's fine. It's not
> Europe, it's not Australia, it's not America, it's not Russia, it's not
> China, or India. God said he created man west of Eden. Africa is west of
> Eden. Sure, most of it is also south…but it's still west. I don't really
> think that's worth belaboring…it agrees well enough. Science puts the
> origins of man in Africa, and the first civilizations in Mesopotamia. The
> Bible put's the creation of man west of Eden, and Eden in Mesopotamia. That
> agrees well enough for me. Here's the map again, since it wasn't in this
> email. http://www.pattersonhistory.net/map01.jpg
>
> and "sometime in the past" -- if that is 150 kya or so even for
> Mitochondrial Eve -- doesn't fit with the Bible's description of the culture
> into which Adam's immediate descendants were placed.
>
> I am working on that presently…and answering this thread is detracting me
> from that work…
>
> Moreover, "(at least) a small population" isn't two individuals. I am no
> expert either, but my sense is that for the MHC data to be accounted for by
> a single pair, you'd either have to have (a) diversification of the MHC at a
> truly astonishing (not just 'fast') rate; or (b) a whole set of miracles not
> mentioned in scripture.
>
> Not mentioned???? God creates man and woman, breaths their spiritual nature
> into them, and you tell me that's not mentioned? Come now. He doesn't give
> out details on how He did it…or what He did. If so the world would be a much
> simpler place. But I think it's clear – He did something.
>
> Isn't it more parsimonious to suggest, as John Stott did in his Romans
> commentary, that the "image of God" and "original sin" are essentially
> spiritual qualities rather than genetic ones? It seems to me that this
> removes much of the burden of trying to tie Adam to the genetic record.
>
> That's not a bad point, but parsimony can be taken only so far. Occam's
> razor can slice down to the bone of metaphysical naturalism, if you let it.
>
> Perhaps Adam lived in (or was removed from the "garden" into) a context
> where there were other "humans," but this says nothing of the spiritual
> aspects of those other homo sapiens who shared the physical world with Adam
> and his descendants for a time.
>
> Well, I don't like that either, but I haven't been able to conceive of a way
> to pull these threads together more tightly without resorting to
> presuppositional logic that ultimately leads to YECism.
>
> I don't deny that PC is a tough position. The one thing that brought me here
> to this position is the strong Biblical foundation, and the thing that keeps
> me here is that there is a model. Models can be revised based on new data,
> and other opinions and interpretations can be incorporated. This is not true
> of YEC – the entire foundation of their position is based on a unbalanced
> premise that only the Bible is true, and not science (at least not anyone's
> science but their own). The PC position is balanced: both Bible and science.
> The TE position is (in my opinion) a bit unbalanced the other way – too much
> reliance on only natural explanations. I know most of you don't agree with
> that, but hey if I wasn't here testing your positions, you wouldn't be
> having so much fun. J
>
> God bless, JP
>
> ---
>
> David W. Opderbeck
> Associate Professor of Law
> Seton Hall University Law School
> Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
>
> On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 2:47 PM, James Patterson <james000777@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
> All,
>
>
>
> I've finally been able to get back to this thread (and sub-threads) and read
> them. I wanted to go read the Ayala manuscript first. I have read it as well
> as the comments on the article, and a few other related articles.
>
>
>
> I must also classify myself as "not an expert" in this field. However, I
> find it quite interesting to look at how often the words "presume" and
> "presumption" are used in the Ayala article. If you look at this article
> specifically and the field as a whole, there is significant controversy over
> the various models and how to interpret the results…more so than I am
> comfortable with. This is reflected in the comment in reply to the Ayala
> article, as well as several other articles (see below).
>
>
>
> All that as an aside. The main issue is the size of the "n" required to pass
> thru a bottleneck. Ayala argues there wasn't even a bottleneck, but I think
> most would agree there is plenty of evidence that there was at least one if
> not more bottlenecks. So I am not going to belabor that issue.
>
>
>
> Ayala's point is that, for a given chunk of DNA, including mtDNA chunks, you
> may be able to trace that chunk back to a common ancestor. However, the next
> chunk of DNA will be from a *different* ancestor, not the same one, implying
> not one, but a population of "Eves". I am NOT familiar enough to state for
> certainty, but I thought that the mtDNA was looked at more as a whole than
> other DNA? It's size is about 15-17 kbp, and codes for 37 genes.
>
>
>
> When we get to the point of whether there was a n=2 vs an n=X, Ayala puts X
> at ~100,000. He describes how it would be impossible for all the alleles of
> the MHC to survive a population smaller than (I think) about 10,000 sexually
> active humans, which equates to a total population that is of course larger.
> The issue here of course is the MHC region. If one is going to look at
> comparative regions and molecular clocks, it seems to me that the MHC has
> got to be the *worst* possible choice to use. Within the field of
> immunology, this region of the genetic code is sometimes called the G.O.D.
> (interesting, yes?) region, for Generator (or Generation) Of Diversity.
> Mutation rates here can be quite rapid. See the Hogstrand or Carrington
> articles below.
>
>
>
> Given that, Ayala's work does not seem to distinguish itself any greater
> than other studies on this topic. And that gets to the heart of the matter:
> From a strict, naturalistic, population genetics viewpoint, a bottleneck of
> an n=2 is unacceptable. The only way to have an n=2 bottleneck is if this
> couple were quite special in some way or ways, and that isn't "natural".
>
>
>
> Thank God, I am not a strict naturalist. J
>
>
>
> The integration of science and faith is why we are here. You may want to
> find a strict natural explanation of everything, because you think that's
> the way God works at all times. If you extrapolate this to the extreme, the
> TE viewpoint becomes the DE viewpoint. I think I mentioned this in another
> thread recently. At the very least, I think you should at least consider
> this to be a prime example of Russell's OSP hard at work. You may be able to
> track the lineage of the descent of man genetically, but tracking the hand
> of God is another matter.
>
>
>
> It becomes very difficult, very quickly, to reconcile God's creation of our
> spiritual selves (as well as original sin) with a (large) population of
> humans that evolved slowly. No matter how you slice it, God's handiwork is
> present. And if we are going to presume the hand of God being involved, then
> strict naturalistic explanations will ultimately fail.
>
>
>
> However, if you *presume* that God was involved, and that God created Adam
> and Eve (as the Bible tells us), and look at what the natural sciences show
> us, we see the emergence of man in the correct *general* location, from (at
> least) a small population, sometime in the past. How exactly, may remain
> unclear. We will have to save the time question for later, tho. J
>
>
>
> If you choose not to believe that God was intimately involved with the
> creation of man through Adam and Eve, then that's your choice. As for me and
> my family, we choose God.
>
>
>
> God bless,
>
> James P
>
>
>
> A few interesting references:
>
>
>
> Gibbons A, (1993). Mitochondrial Eve refuses to die. Science,
> 259(5099):1249-1250.
>
>
>
> Ayala F, (1995). The Myth of Eve: Molecular Biology and Human Origins.
> Science, 270(5244):1930-1936.
>
>
>
> Erlich HA, Bergstrom TF, Stoneking M, and Gyllensten U (1996). HLA Sequence
> Polymorphism and the Origin of Humans (in reply to Ayala's article).
> Science, 274(5292):1552-1554.
>
>
>
> Watson E, Forster P, Richards M, Bandelt HJ, (1997). Mitochondrial
> footprints of human expansions in Africa. Am J Hum Genet, 61(3):691-704.
>
>
>
> Carrington M, (1999). Recombination within the human MHC. Immunological
> Reviews, 167(1):245-256.
>
>
>
> Gray M, Burger G, Lang BF, (1999). Mitochondrial Evolution. Science,
> 283(5407):1476-1481.
>
>
>
> Högstrand K, Böhme J, (1999). Gene conversion can create new MHC alleles.
> Immunological Reviews, 167(1):305-317.
>
>
>
> Cann R, (2001). Genetic Clues to Dispersal in Human Populations: Retracing
> the Past from the Present. Science, 291(5509): 1742-1748.
>
>
>
> Stumpf M and Goldstein D, (2001). Genealogical and Evolutionary Inference
> with the Human Y Chromosome. Science, 291(5509):1738-1742.
>
>
>
> Zimmerman S, (2001). Population size at the time of mitochondrial eve. Human
> Evolution, 16(2):117-124.
>
>
>
> Curnoe D, Thorne A, (2003) Number of ancestral human species: a molecular
> perspective. Homo, 53(3):201-224.
>
>
>
> Hagelberg E, (2003). Recombination or mutation rate heterogeneity?
> Implications for Mitochondrial Eve. Trends Genet, 19(2):84-90.
>
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_histocompatibility_complex#MHC_evolution_and_allelic_diversity
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Feb 22 18:14:06 2009