From Todd Wood at his blog:
News articles last week in El País and New Scientist report the discovery of a Neandertal infant burial in an ancient cave about 58 miles north of Madrid, Spain. …
The abstract describes the discovery of Des-Cubierta cave in 2009 and the subsequent excavation of Late Pleistocene remains of a Neandertal child.
From Richard Gray at New Scientist
The blackened hearths surround a spot where the jaw and six teeth of a Neanderthal toddler were found in the stony sediment. Puzzlingly, within each of these hearths was the horn or antler of a herbivore, apparently carefully placed there. In total, there were 30 horns from aurochs and bison as well as red deer antlers, and a rhino skull nearby.
Archaeologists believe the fires may have been lit as some sort of funeral ritual around where the toddler, known as the Lozoya Child, was placed around 38,000 to 42,000 years ago. More.
Wood notes
The authors of the study, Baquedano et al., suggest in their abstract that the site is probably some kind of grave with the small hearths and horns representing ritual funerary activity. If true, this would be the clearest evidence to date of symbolic behavior of Neandertals in caring for their dead. It looks like the Neandertal parents placed some hunting trophies in with their dead child and lit some small ritual fires. More.
The paper is not yet available.
See also: Study: Neanderthals made jewelry
and
Neanderthal Man: The long-lost relative turns up again, this time with documents
Follow UD News at Twitter!
Dean_from_Ohio
Because Neanderthals are systematically different from modern humans. Is that a good reason?
“Neanderthals are systematically different from modern humans.”
And yet:
Bornagain77
So you agree with me that Neanderthals are systematically different from modern humans.
If you are agreeing with me that Darwinists tried to force fit Neanderthals into their preferred narrative, and ignored all evidence to the contrary, then yes.
And if you are agreeing with the undeniable fact that Darwinists have a long history of being severely misleading, and even downright fraudulent, with the fossil record, then double yes.
I call it the “Fit!,, Damn you, FIT!!” method of science that Darwinists employ when it comes to them forcibly trying to make the fossil record fit their preferred narrative! 🙂
Bornagain77
Great. You agree that Neanderthals are systematically different from modern humans. That’s a good reason not to regard them as modern humans with vitamin deficiencies.
Like I was saying.
PS: Dr Ian Tattersall agrees too; he says that Neanderthals are “sharply distinguished from modern humans by a wide range of cranial and postcranial characters”. (PNAS Vol. 96 No. 13, 7117–7119)
Dean @1
No, I doubt it. Evidence is not all that important here. The problem is that Neanderthals as modern humans does not fit their worldview so there has to be a different interpretation to explain the inconvenient data.
tjguy
The data is that Neanderthals are “sharply distinguished from modern humans by a wide range of cranial and postcranial characters”.
Why is that inconvenient?
CLAVDIVS, and I could just as well argue that wolves are “sharply distinguished from modern dogs by a wide range of cranial and postcranial characters”. And just as well ask why that fact would be inconvenient for Darwinists.
Since I have little reason to hope for you ever to be honest towards the facts, given your history on UD, I’ll answer the question. The reason it is inconvenient for Darwinists is because it does not fit into their meta-narrative. Dawkins is on record saying that dogs are proof of macro-evolution, but the inconvenient truth of the matter is that dogs are just a sub-species of the originally created wolf kind:
Bornagain77
What is the meta-narrative that you’re referring to?
“What is the meta-narrative that you’re referring to?”
The Darwinian meta-narrative is that all life, in all its stunning diversity and unfathomable complexity, arose in a bottom up fashion from simpler life through the undirected material process of random mutations and natural selection. This is generally depicted as a branching tree diagram of simple to complex, i.e. universal common descent. The fossil record does not reveal this branching tree pattern of universal common descent that Darwinists envisioned. The Cambrian explosion by itself, if not an outright falsification of common descent, at least severely challenges common descent.
The primary elephant in the living room problem for the Darwinian meta-narrative, besides the fossil record (and besides the discordant genetic evidence), is that they have no evidence whatsoever that undirected material processes can generate functional coded information.
Whenever we trace to the source of functional coded information, we always find a mind. There is even a prize of up to 3 million dollars for the first person that can prove unguided material processes can generate information and thus falsify the primary contention of Intelligent Design that information only comes from a mind:
CLAVDIVS, would Pygmies have different “…cranial and post cranial characters,” from modern humans? Are they less than human? Would the Elephant Man have a different “…cranial and post cranial character” than humans? Would those who suffer from dwarfism have, “cranial and post cranial characters,” different from normal humans?
What is known about Neanderthal is that he walked upright, wore clothes, used fire, used tools, painted and now buried his dead. Your assumption that he is less than human is clearly a faulty assumption that is simply an opinion derived from your worldview and not the facts.
Do Chihuahuas and St. Bernards have different cranial and post cranial characters?
In reality, humans have always been humans though the Darwinian fogma won’t let’em see it.
And for a guy who claims to not be an Atheist/Darwinist, you sure do love pedalling their just-so-stories.
bornagain77 @ 9
The differences between dogs and wolves, whilst they’re similar enough to be the same species, is perfectly consistent with Darwinism and no inconvenience at all to Darwinists.
The differences between modern humans and Neanderthals, whilst they’re similar enough to probably be the same species, is perfectly consistent with Darwinism and no inconvenience at all to Darwinists, either.
These differences within a species are called varieties by Charles in The Origin and they are an essential building block of his theory: “Thus the small differences distinguishing varieties of the same species, will steadily tend to increase till they come to equal the greater differences between species of the same genus, or even of distinct genera.”
bornagain77 @ 11
Is “functional coded information” a quantity that can be calculated without assuming an intelligent being is required for its creation?
If yes, please provide the procedure to calculate it.
If no, then you’re just arguing in a circle.
“The differences between dogs and wolves, whilst they’re similar enough to be the same species, is perfectly consistent with Darwinism and no inconvenience at all to Darwinists.”
Seeing as Dawkins himself claimed it as proof of macro-evolution and yet the subspeciation of dogs was found to be wrought by a loss of genetic information, methinks thou art much too forgiving of thy beloved materialistic fable.
“The differences between modern humans and Neanderthals, whilst they’re similar enough to probably be the same species, is perfectly consistent with Darwinism and no inconvenience at all to Darwinists, either.”
And again thou art much too ready to grant forgiveness for a century of Darwinists misleading the public on Neanderthals. Art thou the Catholic Priest of Darwinism that Darwinists can recite their confessions to and pay penance to for their past transgressions? If so, you must be exceedingly rich.
“These differences within a species are called varieties by Charles in The Origin and they are an essential building block of his theory: “Thus the small differences distinguishing varieties of the same species, will steadily tend to increase till they come to equal the greater differences between species of the same genus, or even of distinct genera.”
I know the theory. The problem is that variation is always bounded ‘within kind’. i.e. The theory does not match what is found in the real world!
Here is a detailed refutation, by Casey Luskin, to TalkOrigins severely misleading site on the claimed evidence for observed macro-evolution (speciation);
as to:
“Is “functional coded information” a quantity that can be calculated without assuming an intelligent being is required for its creation?
If yes, please provide the procedure to calculate it.”
Information is a physical ‘quantity’ in that it is now shown to have a thermodynamic content:
For calculation of information content from a thermodynamic perspective see here
bornagain77 @ 17
Gibbs entropy is equal to the Shannon information needed to define the collection of microstates of a system.
Is that what you’re saying? We can measure “functional coded information” of any system by measuring its Gibbs entropy?
And you’re saying undirected material processes can *never* increase functional coded information — so undirected material processes can *never* decrease Gibbs entropy?
Is this correct?
CLAVDIVS, I’ve left “functional coded information”, which involves higher level, i.e. ‘top down’ arrangements of matter (G. Ellis), to one side for now and focused on first establishing the primary fact that information is its own physical entity.
i.e. What is now established by showing that information has a ‘thermodynamic content’ is that information is its own independent physical entity which, directly contrary to the reductive materialism upon which Darwinian evolution is built, is not reducible to, or ’emergent from’, a material basis.
In fact, in quantum mechanics it is the material, again completely contrary to the reductive materialism upon which Darwinian evolution is built, which is ultimately reducible to an information basis, i.e. it is not the information that is reducible to a material basis.
Moreover, it should be noted that living organisms have a certain order that’s very different from the ‘random thermodynamic jostling’ of atoms and molecules in inanimate matter of the same complexity.
That Darwinian materialists have no real clue as to exactly why biological life would be so far out of thermodynamic equilibrium is made evident by the following video:
That ‘non-local’ quantum entanglement, which conclusively demonstrates that ‘information’ in its ‘quantum form’ is completely transcendent of any time and space constraints (Bell, Aspect, Leggett, Zeilinger, etc..), should be found in molecular biology on such a massive scale, in every DNA and protein molecule, is a direct empirical falsification of Darwinian claims, for how can the ‘non-local’ quantum entanglement ‘effect’ in biology possibly be explained by a material (matter/energy) cause when the quantum entanglement effect falsified material particles as its own causation in the first place? Appealing to the probability of various ‘random’ configurations of material particles, as Darwinism does, simply will not help since a timeless/spaceless cause must be supplied which is beyond the capacity of the material particles themselves to supply!
To reiterate, a beyond space and time cause must be supplied to explain why quantum information/entanglement is in living organism on such a massive scale, i.e. in every DNA and protein molecule.
As a Theist, I have a beyond space and time cause to appeal to, i.e. I can appeal directly to John 1:1-4
verse:
bornagain77
OK, I grant that information is its own physical entity.
Now can you answer the question:
Is “functional coded information” a quantity that can be calculated without assuming an intelligent being is required for its creation?
If yes, please provide the procedure to calculate it.
If not, then you’re arguing in a circle when you claim there is “no evidence whatsoever that undirected material processes can generate functional coded information.”
“OK, I grant that information is its own physical entity.”
Quite the concession, and yet you speedily passed the point up as if it is nothing of importance. Is empirically falsifying the reductive materialistic premises of Darwinian evolution, i.e. that information is ’emergent’ from a material basis. a big yawn for you?
I would think that should rate a little higher.
Moreover, I don’t understand exactly what you are insinuating by ‘arguing in a circle’. Please expand on your question with unambiguous clarity and detail as to what you mean exactly.
Preferably, use unguided material processes to generate your next post so as to establish the validity of your underlying materialistic claim that generating functional information is no big deal for unguided material processes! 🙂
CLAVDIVS @ 15 “These differences within a species are called varieties by Charles in The Origin and they are an essential building block of his theory: “Thus the small differences distinguishing varieties of the same species, will steadily tend to increase till they come to equal the greater differences between species of the same genus, or even of distinct genera.”
Artificial selection quite to the contrary of your point and the never ending frustration of Darwin and Darwinists, has all but falsified Darwinism. Thousands of generations of artificially selected plants and animals have NEVER been shown to cross higher taxonomic categories. Canines remain canines, felines, felines, bovines, bovines, etc. etc. The fact that you point to artificial selection as evidence of Darwinism, is in fact prima facia evidence that you have not thought much about the actual facts of the matter and have just swallowed the party line without a smidgeon of critical thinking. I recommend the book that contains the following quote.
“The fossil record may be used to justify virtually any position, and often is. There are long eras in which nothing happens. The fire alarms of change then go off in the night. A detailed and continuous record of transition between species is missing, those neat sedimentary layers, as Gould noted time and again, never revealing precisely the phenomena that Darwin proposed to explain. It is hardly a matter on which paleontologists have been reticent. At the very beginning of his treatise ‘Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution,’ Robert Carroll observes quite correctly that “most of the fossil record does not support a strictly gradualist account” of evolution. A “strictly gradualistic” account is precisely what Darwin’s theory demands: It is the heart and soul of the theory.
But by the same token, there are no laboratory demonstrations of speciation either, millions of fruit flies coming and going while never once suggesting that they were destined to appear as anything other than fruit flies. This is the conclusion suggested as well by more than six thousand years of artificial selection, the practice of barnyard and backyard alike. Nothing can induce a chicken to lay a square egg or to persuade a pig to develop wheels mounted on ball bearings. It would be a violation, as chickens and pigs are prompt to observe and often with indignation, of their essential nature. If species have an essential nature that beyond limits cannot change, then random variations and natural selection cannot change them. We must look elsewhere for an account that does justice to their nature or to the facts. “
David Berlinski, The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions, pp 188-189
bornagain77
On the contrary, I think the point is very important. However, as we agree on it, discussing it is an irrelevant distraction from my question that you still have not answered:
Is “functional coded information” a quantity that can be calculated without assuming an intelligent being is required for its creation?
If yes, please provide the procedure to calculate it.
If not, then you’re arguing in a circle when you claim there is “no evidence whatsoever that undirected material processes can generate functional coded information.”
Arguing in a circle — begging the question, assuming your conclusion, petitio principii: This means a fallacious argument where the conclusion is based on premises which already include the conclusion.
So, when you claim “undirected material processes cannot generate functional coded information”, you need to have a definition of “functional coded information” that does not require that “functional coded information can’t be generated by undirected material processes”.
Otherwise, you’re just restating a meaningless tautology: “something that can’t be generated by undirected material processes is something that can’t be generated by undirected material processes.” Well d’uh. This tells us nothing and proves nothing.
So you need to define “functional coded information” in such a way that it can be measured or identified independently from the question of whether or not it can be created by undirected material processes. For example, “functional coded information is equal to mass in kg” or “Gibbs entropy”.
This definition is what I’m asking for.
Florabama
Of course not.
You really don’t understand Darwin’s theory, do you? If you did you would realise that, according to his theory, descendants can never be in a different, higher level taxonomic category from their ancestors.
Believe it or not, we can prove things beyond reasonable doubt outside laboratories. Like speciation.
“I grant that information is its own physical entity.”
“you need to have a definition of “functional coded information”,,, “functional coded information is equal to mass in kg” or “Gibbs entropy”.
This definition is what I’m asking for.”
And exactly how did you come to the conclusion that information is its own physical entity if it was not for the fact that it was measured as a ‘bit’ that had ‘thermodynamic content’?
You need to maintain consistency in your thinking.
As to coded information in particular, here are a few of my notes:
Perry Marshall, in reference to the 3 million dollar prize, defined it simply as such:
also of note
also of note:
also of note is semiotic information,,
As you can see, some very bright minds have put a lot of effort into clarifying this information issue. If you want to accuse them of ‘arguing in a circle’ when they claim information comes only from a mind, then I will write you off as a troll and request the admin to stop you from pestering me.
bornagain77
This is a classic case of arguing in a circle.
According to this, information requires “agreed upon” symbols. This obviously assumes the existence of intelligent designers who are doing the agreeing.
It is therefore fatuous to argue “information cannot come into existence without a designer”. Of course it can’t, if we only count something as “information” if it involves intelligent designers in the first place.
Marshall’s quote is equivalent to saying “something that cannot come into existence without a designer is something that cannot come into existence without a designer.” D’uh. That’s a meaningless and useless tautology. This is what comes from arguing in a circle.
Do you see the problem here?
So what’s your definition of functional coded information?
PS:
If they’re arguing in a circle then I am not hesitant or ashamed about pointing it out. It’s a fallacy and they should be grateful for the opportunity to correct their fallacious argument. Hiding behind a moderator’s skirts won’t change a fallacious argument into a sound one; it will just signal to the world the weakness of your position and your inability to defend it.
Au contraire, the existence of functional coded information in life, and the inference to a mind needed to create that functional coded information, is certainly not ‘arguing in a circle’ as you are falsely claiming but is arguing from ‘presently acting cause known to produce the effect in question’. Which just so happens to be the same exact method of science that Darwin himself used.
If you want to argue that Darwin was ‘arguing in a circle’ in his theory then that is perfectly fine by me since, besides cutting your feet off to spite your legs, I regard his work as a non-falsifiable psuedoscience which, unlike ID, has no rigid demarcation criteria to test against.
Supplemental note: Conservation of Information on steroids:
Seeing as you have now falsely accused George Ellis and others of ‘arguing in a circle’ then I will forward this thread to admin. and see if he agrees with me that you are trolling.
bornagain77
The only person I have accused of arguing in a circle is Perry Marshall.
Please read for comprehension.
Request sent.
bornagain77
You claim ID has rigid demarcation criteria to test against.
Great. But I’m still trying to get you to state what your argument actually is.
You claim there’s something in the world that could not possibly come into existence without an intelligent designer. You call that thing “functional coded information”. Well, ok, but there of plenty of things I would call functional coded information (e.g. the electromagnetic patterns caused by eclipsing binary stars) that do not appear to require an intelligent designer.
So your term “functional coded information” is hopelessly vague. Accordingly, I’m asking you to define it for me.
Just don’t tell me its something that “only comes into existence from an intelligent designer” because that tells me nothing other than what you’ve already said (arguing in a circle, see?).
Do you get it now?