IC All The Way Down, The Grand Human Evolutionary Discontinuity, And Probabilistic Resources

_{Gil Dodgen

November 26, 2009

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

The more we learn the more it appears that almost everything of any significance in living systems is irreducibly complex. Multiple systems must almost always be simultaneously modified to proceed to the next island of function. Every software engineer knows this, and living things are fundamentally based on software.

Evolution in the fossil record is consistently characterized by major discontinuities — as my thesis about IC being a virtually universal rule at all levels, from the cell to human cognition and language, would suggest — and the discontinuity between humans and all other living things is the most profound of all. Morphological similarities are utterly swamped by the profound differences exhibited by human language, math, art, engineering, ethics, and much more.

Yes, chimps have been shown to use tools: They can pick up ants with a stick in order to eat them. But there is a big difference between this and designing and building a Cray supercomputer or an F-35 fighter aircraft. To the best of my knowledge our primitive simian ancestors did not advance beyond ant-stick technology.

I continue to be bewildered by the fact that proponents of human evolution by Darwinian mechanisms (i.e., random errors filtered by natural selection) don’t do some simple math to see that the probabilistic resources are hopelessly inadequate, even when the most optimistic assumptions are made.

Unrealistically and optimistically assume the following base-ten orders of magnitude: an average generation time of 10^1 years; an average population of 10^8; and a time frame of 10^7 years.

Do the math. With these probabilistic resources it is assumed by Darwinian theorists that their mechanism produced the most profound and stunning of all evolutionary discontinuities.

I believe that our ancient ancestors were just as smart as we are. They figured out, in their time and with what they had access to, how to make fire, bows and arrows, art, and much more. If I were to be transported back to those times, and be stripped of my current knowledge, I would probably be considered an idiot by the dudes who figured out fire and arrows.

Chimps are still picking up ants with sticks.

Something very profound happened, very suddenly, and Darwinian theory clearly does not explain it.

Comments

Voice Coil:
I am still interested in your reponse to the question of how these unique human characteristics are transmitted from human parent to human child, if not in via DNA.
DNA is just hardware that carries out the instructions (software) that are embedded on/in it. BTW I understand the current explanation. What I am saying is that there isn't any way to test it. And there isn't any data which would demonstrate that we are a sum of our genes.Joseph_{November 27, 2009
November
11
Nov
27
27
2009
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PDT}

Joseph:
My position is that no one knows whether or not any amount of mutational accumulation can account for the anatomical and physiological differences observed between chimps and humans.
I'm trying to understand this. But this is a position regarding the current state of knowledge (e.g., "no one knows"), not a position vis the phenomenon itself. Do you have a position on the phenomenon itself? (Example: "no amount of mutational accumulation can account for these physiological differences?") Or are you saying that you don't know, and that no one else knows either? I am still interested in your reponse to the question of how these unique human characteristics are transmitted from human parent to human child, if not in via DNA. To use your example: the current explanation for why human infants are born with an "in-line" feet that resembles the feet of their parents, while chimpanzees are born with grasping toes, like their parents, resides in differences in human versus chimp DNA passed from parents to child, expressed during embryological development. Are you saying that this explanation is unwarranted by the evidence or is otherwise implausible?Voice Coil_{November 27, 2009
November
11
Nov
27
27
2009
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT}

Voice Coil, My position is that no one knows whether or not any amount of mutational accumulation can account for the anatomical and physiological differences observed between chimps and humans. And as far as we know Homo sapiens have always been Homo sapiens. For example how can we test the premise that the opposable big toe- designed for a grasping foot- could evolve into an in-line position as seen in a human foot- designed for running via changes in DNA? Upright walking and running- do you realize what has to be changed to accomplish that?Joseph_{November 27, 2009
November
11
Nov
27
27
2009
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT}

Joseph:
And perhaps the differences in DNA can be accounted for via known processes. What can’t be accounted for is the differences in anatomy and physiology.
So, your position is that the changes in anatomy and physiology that culminated in the evolution of Homo sapiens did not necessarily result from corresponding changes in ancestral DNA. Changes in DNA may have arisen stepwise, by means of known processes, yet those changes in DNA don't account for the observed changes in anatomy and physiology. Where do you suppose those changes arose, and how are they now transmitted from human parent to human child, if not in human DNA?Voice Coil_{November 27, 2009
November
11
Nov
27
27
2009
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT}

Voice Coil, Did you read any of those papers? There hasn't been a direct and complete comparison of chimp and human DNA. Heck just skip down to the section titled "Methods" and it explains what they compared. And perhaps the differences in DNA can be accounted for via known processes. What can't be accounted for is the differences in anatomy and physiology. Even Denton says that genes may influence development but they do not determine it:
“Yet by the late 1980s it was becoming obvious to most genetic researchers, including myself, since my own main research interest in the ‘80s and ‘90s was human genetics, that the heroic effort to find the information specifying life’s order in the genes had failed. There was no longer the slightest justification for believing that there exists anything in the genome remotely resembling a program capable of specifying in detail all the complex order of the phenotype. The emerging picture made it increasingly difficult to see genes in Weismann’s “unambiguous bearers of information” or to view them as the sole source of the durability and stability of organic form. It is true that genes influence every aspect of development, but influencing something is not the same as determining it. Only a very small fraction of all known genes, such as developmental fate switching genes, can be imputed to have any sort of directing or controlling influence on form generation. From being “isolated directors” of a one-way game of life, genes are now considered to be interactive players in a dynamic two-way dance of almost unfathomable complexity, as described by Keller in The Century of The Gene.” Michael John Denton page 172 of Uncommon Dissent
Joseph_{November 27, 2009
November
11
Nov
27
27
2009
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT}

Nakashima:
I’m not a population genetecist, but I think that if you throw those probabilistic resources together in some kind of equation, what you will really be solving for is the selectioin pressure necessary to acheive the changes from t0 to now.
I think that it's already been admitted by evolutionists that selection is unsatisfactory to explain the data, and that most changes had to have been neutral.
And then you can ask if that answer accords with the value of the changes posited to have occured, speech, culture, etc. Those things were very valuable, as you have demonstrated.
I don't know of any attempts to do this by evolutionists (Actually, I think I may recall one paper. I'd have to look into it.) But to make the theory testable, isn't this exactly what evolutionary biologists/anthopologists should be doing? Haw many changes would be required to support just the physiological changes need to support speach? But even then, in order for these changes to come to predominate, the individuals who have these features need to leave more offspring, on average, than those that don't. The generation time in the human lineage just can't support that many mutations coming to be fixed on the posited time, we just don't leave enough offspring.
Mung_{November 27, 2009
November
11
Nov
27
27
2009
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT}

On the subject of mathematics and irreducible complexity, Berlinski has a chapter in his new book on that very topic.Mung_{November 27, 2009
November
11
Nov
27
27
2009
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT}

If Darwinism were true, there wouldn’t be any good mathematicians.
That's correct. There are good mathematicians. In fact, there are mathematicians which go way beyond "good." Therefore, Darwinism is false. The conclusion is inescapable. You must therefore show how one of the premises is false.
I don’t want to steal the show, so Gil, please show us the simple math that disproves human evolution. Let it be a lesson to those supposedly math savvy Darwinists.
Speaking of mathematicians: http://www.amazon.com/Mathematics-Evolution-Fred-Hoyle/dp/0966993403 I just came across this site: http://www.mathematicsofevolution.com/Mung_{November 27, 2009
November
11
Nov
27
27
2009
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT}

Joseph asked:
Has there ever been a direct and complete side-by-side comparison of chimp DNA to human DNA?
Link to the 2005 article in Nature reporting upon the comparison of the draft chimpanzee genome with the human genome: http://www.genome.gov/Pages/Research/DIR/Chimp_Analysis.pdf Many other papers have followed - a review: "Understanding the Recent Evolution of the Human Genome: Insights from Human–Chimpanzee Genome Comparisons" Human Mutation, Volume 28, issue 2 (February 2007), p. 99 - 130
Also did you realize that your quote-mine of Denton pertains only to the hemoglobin gene cluster?
You are parsing his statement incorrectly. He first states:
In fact, the differences between the DNA of man and chimp can be accounted for by simple well-known mutational processes which are occurring all the time in nature at present.
This is a characterization of differences present in the entire genomes. He then cites an example:
In the case of primate DNA, for example, all the sequences in the hemoglobin gene cluster in man, chimp, gorilla, gibbon, etc. can be interconverted via single base change steps to form a perfect evolutionary tree relating the higher primates together in a system that looks as natural as could be imagined.
Hemoglobin exemplifies his larger point: that differences between the DNA of man and chimp can be accounted for by simple well-known mutational processes.Voice Coil_{November 27, 2009
November
11
Nov
27
27
2009
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT}

One can seriously call into question the statement that human and chimp genomes are 99% identical. For one thing, it has been noted in the literature that the exact degree of identity between the two genomes is as yet unknown (Cohen, J., 2007. “Relative differences: The myth of 1%,” Science 316: 1836.). Part of the reason for this is if one decides to take into account the plethora of species-specific DNA insertions and deletions (“indels”) that are present along any segment compared between chimp and human, the percentage of identity drops. Another reason is that duplications, inversions, translocations, and transpositions at all scales uniquely characterize the two genome sequences — these have to be untangled before aligning the sequences in order to measure their similarity. Also, the 99% identity figure is often derived from protein-coding regions that only comprise about 1.5% of the two genomes. Many mammalian protein-coding regions are highly conserved, however. We also have to consider that a detailed comparison of certain “heterochromatic” chromosome regions between chimps and humans has yet to be made. In short, the figure of identity that one wants to use is dependent on various methodological factors.
See here. If there is only a 1% difference in the DNA, it is obvious that DNA is not the sole source of biological information, because the discontinuity between humans and chimps is obvious and monstrously huge.GilDodgen_{November 27, 2009
November
11
Nov
27
27
2009
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT}

Voice Coil, Has there ever been a direct and complete side-by-side comparison of chimp DNA to human DNA? Also did you realize that your quote-mine of Denton pertains only to the hemoglobin gene cluster? Said gene cluster acts basically the same even given the differences. So how does that account for the vast anatomical and physiological differences observed?Joseph_{November 27, 2009
November
11
Nov
27
27
2009
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT}

Zachriel: Where’s the discontinuity? vjtorley: First of all, the discontinuity is cognitive.
The original post referred to language, math, art, engineering, ethics, and much more. Other than language, these other facilities are clearly the result of cultural evolution. And as you pointed out above, there is reason to believe that human ancestors also had some level of language skills.
vjtorley: you complain about the “cultural evolution that takes thousand of years just to reach agriculture.”
Well, not a complaint; just an observation. Certainly sedentary agriculture required profound changes in human behavior. But the change was probably gradual, and we can see in extant hunt-and-gather cultures many of the steps that might have been required (such as weeding food plants during migrations).
vjtorley: First of all, the discontinuity is cognitive.
Returning to your point, Cognition itself doesn't leave fossils, so it's difficult to compare cognitive ability of humans with their immediate predecessors. Those predecessors used stone tools and fire. Modern humans are a highly technological, problem-solving organism, but this capacity grew over time. Indeed, if you looked at early Homo sapiens, they would not be much more advanced than their immediate ancestors.Zachriel_{November 27, 2009
November
11
Nov
27
27
2009
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT}

Denton later put the final nail into the coffin of evolutionary continuity as it relates to primate evolution:
Human and chimpanzee DNA sequences differ on average at only one base in a hundred. As far as we can tell, not only are the DNA sequences virally identical, but every gene identified in the human genome has its counterpart in the chimpanzee genome… In fact, the differences between the DNA of man and chimp can be accounted for by simple well-known mutational processes which are occurring all the time in nature at present. In the case of primate DNA, for example, all the sequences in the hemoglobin gene cluster in man, chimp, gorilla, gibbon, etc. can be interconverted via single base change steps to form a perfect evolutionary tree relating the higher primates together in a system that looks as natural as could be imagined. There is not the slightest indication of any discontinuity. Indeed, human and chimpanzee DNA are closer together than the DNA sequences of many so-called sibling species of the fruit fly drosophilia, that is, species which are almost indistinguishable in morphological characteristics.
...Oops, I meant the other Denton. ("Nature's Destiny" pages 277-278)Voice Coil_{November 27, 2009
November
11
Nov
27
27
2009
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT}

"Personally, I would be delighted if evidence were found of intervention in human evolution by a 2001-type black monolith. It would be evidence for the existence of extra-terrestrial intelligence and would offer the prospect of practical interstellar or even inter-galactic travel." Translation: As long as it's not God, I'm okay with it.Barb_{November 27, 2009
November
11
Nov
27
27
2009
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT}

But we do not doubt that both evolved through standard evolutionary mechanisms. This is the crux of the matter. For the Darwinist, doubt is not permitted or even conceivable. Michael Denton comments on this in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis in the chapter entitled "The Priority of the Paradigm."
The fact that the gaps have not been narrowed in any significant sense since the mid-eighteenth century means that the sampling error stratagem has essentially failed, and its failure has in effect stripped the Darwinian concept of a continuum of functional forms leading gradually across all the divisions of nature of any objective basis. [...] The anti-evolutionary thesis argued in this book, the idea that life might be fundamentally a discontinuous phenomenon, runs counter to the whole thrust of modern biological thought. The infusion with the spirit of continuity has been so prolonged and so deeply imbibed that for most biologists it has become quite literally inconceivable that life might not be a continuous phenomenon. Like the centrality of the Earth in medieval astronomy, the principle of continuity has come to be considered by most biologists as a necessary law of nature. It is unthinkable that it might not hold. To question it is an offence to all our basic intuitions about the nature of biological reality. [...] The truth is that despite the prestige of evolutionary theory and the tremendous intellectual effort directed towards reducing living systems to the confines of Darwinian thought, nature refuses to be imprisoned. In the final analysis we still know very little about how new forms of life arise. The "mystery of mysteries" -- the origin of new beings on earth -- is still largely as enigmatic as when Darwin set sail on the Beagle.
GilDodgen_{November 27, 2009
November
11
Nov
27
27
2009
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT}

11, 17, 18 Vjtorley A digression that has always intrigued me. If you hold these three beliefs (as I think you do): 1) a dualist 2) common descent 3) humans alone have minds is "having a mind" an inherited characteristic? Or do we just inherit the brain which is capable of supporting a mind and the mind is added by some other external cause?Mark Frank_{November 27, 2009
November
11
Nov
27
27
2009
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT}

But we do not doubt that both evolved through standard evolutionary mechanisms.
And yet there isn't any data that supports the transformations. Go figure...Joseph_{November 27, 2009
November
11
Nov
27
27
2009
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT}

It is worth reproducing the first footnote to the Penn article: "Let us be clear: all similarities and differences in biology are ultimately a matter of degree. Any apparent discontinuities between living species belie the underlying continuity of the evolutionary process and largely result from the fact that many, and often all, of the intermediate steps are no longer extant. In the present paper, our claim that there is a 'discontinuity' between human and nonhuman cognition is based on our claim that there is a significant gap between the functional capabilities of the human mind and those of all other extant species on the planet. Our point, to cut to the chase, is that the functional discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds is at least as great as the much more widely acknowledged discontinuity between human and nonhuman forms of communication. But we do not doubt that both evolved through standard evolutionary mechanisms." The bolded portion explicitly contradicts any claim that these spectacular gains in human cognition may be characterized as reflecting "irreducible complexity." Can you provide a link to the commentaries to this article? Those are often as valuable as the target article.Voice Coil_{November 27, 2009
November
11
Nov
27
27
2009
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT}

Zachriel (#13) You ask:
Where’s the discontinuity? We have stone-tool using hominids followed by stone-tool using Homo sapiens. This is followed by cultural evolution that takes thousand of years just to reach agriculture.
First of all, the discontinuity is cognitive. Here's the long abstract of an article in Behavioral and Brain Sciences (2008), 31(2): 109-178, by Derek C. Penn, Keith J. Holyoak and Daniel Povinelli, entitled Darwin’s mistake: Explaining the discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds :
Over the last quarter-century, the dominant tendency in comparative cognitive psychology has been to emphasize the similarities between human and nonhuman minds and to downplay the differences as “one of degree and not of kind” (Darwin 1871). In the present paper, we argue that Darwin was mistaken: the profound biological continuity between human and nonhuman animals masks an equally profound discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds. To wit, there is a significant discontinuity in the degree to which human and nonhuman animals are able to approximate the higher-order, systematic, relational capabilities of a physical symbol system (Newell 1980). We show that this symbolic-relational discontinuity pervades nearly every domain of cognition and runs much deeper than even the spectacular scaffolding provided by language or culture alone can explain. We propose a representational-level specification of where human and nonhuman animals’ abilities to approximate a PSS are similar and where they differ. We conclude by suggesting that recent symbolic-connectionist models of cognition shed new light on the mechanisms that underlie the gap between human and nonhuman minds. (Emphases mine - VJT.)
Note that despite the title, the authors are all orthodox Darwinian evolutionists. Yet even they feel compelled to acknowledge that a radical discontinuity exists. And if that's not good enough for you, try Origin of the Mind by Professor Marc Hauser. Article in Scientific American, September 2009. Marc Hauser is a professor of psychology, human evolutionary biology, and organismic and evolutionary biology at Harvard University. Click here for a discussion of Hauser's article in the journal First Things in a review by Wesley J. Smith, entitled "Human Exceptionalism Proved by the Human Mind" (5 September 2009). Excerpts from Hauser's article:
[M]ounting evidence indicates that, in contrast to Darwin's theory of a continuity of mind between humans and other species, a profound gap separates our intellect from the animal kind. This is not to say that our mental faculties sprang fully formed out of nowhere. Researchers have found some of the building blocks of human cognition in other species. But these building blocks make up only the cement footprint of the skyscraper that is the human mind... Recently the author identified four unique aspects of human cognition... [These are:] "Generative computation," that allows us to "create a virtual limitless variety of words, concepts and things." "Promiscuous combination of ideas," meaning the ability to mingle "different domains of knowledge," e.g., art, sex, causality, etc. "Mental symbols" allow us to enjoy a "rich and complex system of communication." "Abstract thought," which "permits contemplation of things beyond what we can see, hear, touch, taste or smell... What we can say with utmost confidence is that all people, from the hunter-gatherers on the African savanna to the traders on Wall Street, are born with the four ingredients of humaniqueness (Hauser's term for "human uniqueness" - VJT). How these ingredients are added to the recipe for creating culture varies considerably from group to group, however... No other animal exhibits such variation in lifestyle. Looked at in this way, a chimpanzee is a cultural nonstarter... Although anthropologists disagree about exactly when the modern human mind took shape, it is clear from the archaeological record that a major transformation occurred during a relatively brief period of evolutionary history, starting approximately 800,000 years ago in the Paleolithic era and crescendoing around 45,000 to 50,000 years ago... [Other animals'] uses of symbols are unlike ours in five essential ways: they are triggered only by real objects or events, never imagined ones; they are restricted to the present; they are not part of a more abstract classification scheme, such as those that organize our words into nouns, verbs and adjectives; they are rarely combined with other symbols, and when they are, the combinations are limited to a string of two, with no rules; and they are fixed to particular contexts... Still, for now we have little choice but to admit that our mind is different from that of even our closest primate relatives and that we do not know much about how that difference came to be. Could a chimpanzee think up an experiment to test humans? Could a chimpanzee imagine what it would be like for us to solve one of their problems? No and no. Although chimpanzees can see what we do, they cannot imagine what we think or feel because they lack the requisite machinery. Although chimpanzees and other animals appear to develop plans and consider both past experiences and future options, there is no evidence that they think in terms of counterfactuals - imagining worlds that have been against those that could be. We humans do this all the time and have done so since our distinctive genome gave birth to our distinctive minds. Our moral systems are premised on this mental capacity. (Emphases mine - VJT.)
Zachriel, you complain about the "cultural evolution that takes thousand of years just to reach agriculture." I have uncovered two plausible explanations of why it took so long for us to discover agriculture: (i) it takes quite a lot of incremental technological improvements to get a society to the stage where they can practice agriculture; and (ii) the climate (in particular, low CO2 levels) may have made agriculture impossible. (i) The Discovery of Agriculture by Rochelle Forrester, a philosopher of history (published in 2002). The author of this extremely fair-minded article contends that it was gradual improvements in human technology and human knowledge of the environment over time that led to the development of agriculture. Hunter-gatherers living 40,000 years ago would not have had the specialized knowledge required to cultivate plants successfully. This expertise might only have been acquired after a long period of gradually increasing knowledge. (ii) Origin of agriculture and domestication of plants and animals linked to early Holocene climate amelioration by Dr. Anil Gupta. In Current Science, Vol. 87, No. 1, July 2004. An extract:
That agriculture did not start during the Pleistocene can be explained from the fact that last glacial climates were extremely unfavourable to agriculture, being dry, low in atmospheric CO2, and extremely variable on short time scales. As the climate ameliorated, domestication followed. Indeed, in the Holocene, agriculture may have become necessary for the expansion of humans.
I have presented above evidence for not one but two technological leaps that could be identified with the emergence of human intelligence. I should add that the sudden appearance of Homo erectus in Africa (i.e. Homo ergaster) around 2 million years ago, remains a mystery.vjtorley_{November 27, 2009
November
11
Nov
27
27
2009
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT}

Brain size- again more "gross anatomy". I say that because no one knows if any amount of genetic alterations can allow for such a change in brain size a brain casing size. IOW ALL evolutionists have is imagination based on the assumption. And that passes for science these days.Joseph_{November 27, 2009
November
11
Nov
27
27
2009
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT}

Seversky, All you have to do to refute the premise that IC = design is actually go out and support YOUR position that says accumulating genetic accidents can account for it. Seeing that you can't all you can do is come here and whine. Also "Intelligent Design Creationism" only exists in the minds of the willfully ignorant. So thank you for continuing to expose your ignorance and your agenda. As for humans and other primates no one can even account for the change in feet.Joseph_{November 27, 2009
November
11
Nov
27
27
2009
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT}

Irreducible complexity is still no more than the argument from incredulity afforded credibility by being espoused by a credulous scientist. Personally, I would be delighted if evidence were found of intervention in human evolution by a 2001-type black monolith. It would be evidence for the existence of extra-terrestrial intelligence and would offer the prospect of practical interstellar or even inter-galactic travel. Unfortunately, it would be of no help to Intelligent Design Creationism. As far as human evolution is concerned, it would show that an ET intelligence had altered its course, not that it doesn't happen at all. Nor would it answer any questions about the origins of life. It would just put it back one stage, since we would then have to ask about the origins of ET. Besides, as others have argued, any apparent discontinuity is probably an artefact of not paying sufficiently close attention to the fine detail of what is already known.Seversky_{November 27, 2009
November
11
Nov
27
27
2009
05:24 AM
5
05
24
AM
PDT}

Gildogden: Evolution in the fossil record is consistently characterized by major discontinuities — as my thesis about IC being a virtually universal rule at all levels, from the cell to human cognition and language, would suggest — and the discontinuity between humans and all other living things is the most profound of all. Morphological similarities are utterly swamped by the profound differences exhibited by human language, math, art, engineering, ethics, and much more.
Where's the discontinuity? We have stone-tool using hominids followed by stone-tool using Homo sapiens. This is followed by cultural evolution that takes thousand of years just to reach agriculture.Zachriel_{November 27, 2009
November
11
Nov
27
27
2009
04:59 AM
4
04
59
AM
PDT}

jitsak (4), "I don’t want to steal the show, so Gil, please show us the simple math that disproves human evolution." Good luck with that. Gil has previously claimed that high school math showed him how evolution was impossible, but despite repeated requests he hasn't shown us his working out. I doubt you'll have any better luck with him. He probably can't do it.Gaz_{November 27, 2009
November
11
Nov
27
27
2009
01:10 AM
1
01
10
AM
PDT}

Minor typo:
Morton also argues that Homo erectus fed, took care of and totally immobilized individuals who were suffering from an excess of vitamin A
should read
Morton also argues that Homo erectus fed and took care of totally immobilized individuals who were suffering from an excess of vitamin A.
Sorry.vjtorley_{November 27, 2009
November
11
Nov
27
27
2009
12:39 AM
12
12
39
AM
PDT}

Hi everyone, Jerry (#8) asks a very good question about the emergence of human intelligence:
When did all this happen and how did it spread to a species that is as probably as wide spread as any on the planet?
Regardless of one's theological perspective, that's a very important question. We need to tie down the date and location of the emergence of human intelligence before we can answer questions about whether it could have emerged through undirected natural processes. I've been investigating this matter for a while now, and this is what I've come up with. Before I go on, I'd just like to comment that the notion that language accounts for the origin of intelligence is rejected by Derek C. Penn, Keith J. Holyoak and Daniel Povinelli in their thought-provoking article, Darwin’s mistake: Explaining the discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds :
While the advantages of symbolic communication are enormous, the adaptive advantages of being able to reason in a relational fashion have a certain primacy over the communicative function of language. It is quite difficult to imagine how communicating in hierarchically-structured sentences would be of any use without the ability to entertain hierarchically-structured thoughts. But it is quite easy to imagine how the ability to reason about higher-order relations—particularly causal and mentalistic relations—might be highly adaptive without the ability to communicate those thoughts to anyone else. If one is a hairless biped in a hostile environment surrounded by ambitious and conniving conspecifics, the evolutionary advantages of reasoning about higher-order relations go far beyond the ability to communicate hierarchical thoughts to those conspecifics.
In the discussion which follows, it will be useful to keep a few dates in mind: Date One: Emergence of Homo erectus, at least 1.9 million years ago, but likely a little over 2 million years ago, as similar-looking but somewhat smaller-brained specimens has been found in Asia (Dmanisi, Georgia) dating from 1.8 million years ago. Note: I'm including African Homo erectus, or Homo ergaster in this clade, as most experts now do so. Brain size: initially 850 cc.; later reached 1100 cc. Likely place of origin: East Africa. Anatomy and Stance: The African variety of Homo erectus stood over 6 feet tall. He was fully upright and pretty much like us from the neck down. Language use: Homo erectus seems to have had a humanlike Broca's area in his brain, and no physical impediments to speech. (One specimen formerly found to have been incapable of speech, the Turkana boy, is now known to have suffered from stunted vertebral growth, which restricted its breathing and therefore its ability to produce speech.) According to the Wikipedia article on Homo ergaster: It is certainly recognised by endocasts that H. habilis [a more primitive hominin species - VJT] had a significant mode of communication (though its hyoid and construction of the ear do not support spoken language), and that H. ergaster had a more advanced form of this communicative neurology. It is therefore certainly conceivable that H. ergaster had the ability to use what could be called language. Tool use: According to the Wikipedia article cited above:
Homo ergaster used more diverse and sophisticated tools than its predecessors: [Asian - VJT] H. erectus, however, used comparatively primitive tools. This is possibly because H. ergaster first used tools of Oldowan technology and later progressed to the Acheulean: while the use of Acheulean tools began ca. 1.6 million years ago, the line of H. erectus diverged some 200,000 years before the general innovation of Acheulean technology. Thus the Asian migratory descendants of H. ergaster [African Homo erectus, the ancestral population - VJT] made no use of any Acheulean technology. In addition, it has been suggested that H. erectus may have been the first hominid to use rafts to travel over oceans.
Homo erectus was also capable of using fire. Glenn Morton has argued strongly that Homo erectus was the first human being (see his article, The Humanity of Fossil Man ). He argues thatHomo erectus was capable of planning ahead at least four days in advance (see Planning ahead - article in PSCF ) - unlike chimps who can only plan 20 minutes ahead. Morton also argues that Homo erectus fed, took care of and totally immobilized individuals who were suffering from an excess of vitamin A, and kept them warm at night (see The Compassionate Homo erectus ). Chimps never show this kind of compassion. I should add that Morton is not an anthropologist, however. ================================ Date Two: Emergence of Homo antecessor in Europe about 1.2 million years ago. This species is little known; some authorities lump it in with Homo heidelbergensis although many of its features are almost indistinguishable from African Homo erectus. This species is only known from Spain. Brain size: 1000-1150 cc. May have been right-handed, unlike apes. Frequency range of audition (as revealed by tomography) is similar to that of modern humans, leading some to believe that it possessed language. ================================ Date 3: Emergence of Homo heidelbergensis, about 600,000 years ago. Note: Homo erectus was the last common ancesor of Homo sapiens and Neanderthal man. Since we now know that Neanderthal man used language (see Professor Bolles' blog article Neanderthals Had Language ) and were capable of sophisticated activities like controlling fire, constructing complex shelters, and, it seems, making music (see Music of the Ages by Glenn Morton) it seems prudent to conclude that unless humanlike intelligence emerged on two independent occasions in history, true human beings (in the spiritual sense) must go back 600,000 years, to the emergence of Homo heidelbergensis. Place of origin of Homo heidelbergensis: Africa. The species rapidly migrated to Europe. Brain size: 1100-1400 cc. (The average size for modern humans is 13500 cc, and 1000-2000 cc. is considered normal.) Anatomy: Very like African Homo erectus, except for its bigger brain. Stood 6 feet tall, like African Homo erectus. Tool use: Capable of hunting wild deer, rhinoceroses, elephants and horses. Used wooden projectile spears 400,000 years ago. Art and culture: May have buried its dead (still contested). Seems to have used red ochre as a paint. Religion: Evidence of an animal cult has been found at Bilzingsleben, Germany. The excavators, Dietrich and Ursula Mania found a 27-foot-diameter paved area that they say was used for "special cultural activities" (Mania et al, 1994, p. 124; See also Mania and Mania, 1988, p. 92).[Refs: (1) Mania, Dietrich and Ursula Mania, 1988. "Deliberate Engravings on Bone Artefacts of Homo Erectus," Rock Art Research 5:2: 91-107. (2) Mania D., and U. Mania and E. Vlcek, 1994. "Latest Finds of Skull Remains of Homo erectus from Bilzingsleben (Thuringia)", Naturwissenschaften, 81, p. 123-127.] Gore writes:
But Mania's most intriguing find lies under a protective shed. As he opens the door sunlight illuminates a cluster of smooth stones and pieces of bone that he believes were arranged by humans to pave a 27-foot-wide circle. "'They intentionally paved this area for cultural activities,' says Mania. 'We found here a large anvil of quartzite set between the horns of a huge bison, near it were fractured human skulls.' (1997,p. 110). [Gore, Rick 1997. "The First Europeans," National Geographic, July, p. 96-113.]
Language: Homo heidelbergensis was probably capable of speech. Analysis of its ear bones suggests it had the same auditory sensitivity as we do - in this respect it was quite different from a chimpanzee. It's generally agreed now by authorities that Neanderthal man was capable of language. See Professor Bolles' blog article, Neanderthals had language . Thus Homo heidelbergensis likely had the same capacity. See also Professor Bolles' blog article, Fossil Evidence of Speech for more evidence of speech in Homo heidelbergensis. Finally, what does the archaeological evidence from tools suggest? Here's an article from 2002 by Dr. Thomas Wynn (Department of Anthropology, University of Colorado), entitled Archaeology and human cognition. I'll quote an excerpt:
Archaeology can provide two bodies of information relevant to the understanding of the evolution of human cognition - the timing of developments, and the evolutionary context of these developments. The challenge is methodological. Archaeology must document attributes that have direct implications for underlying cognitive mechanisms. One example of such a cognitive archaeology is that for spatial cognition. The archaeological record documents an evolutionary sequence that begins with ape-equivalent spatial abilities 2.5 million years ago and ends with the appearance of modern abilities in the still remote past of 400,000 years ago. The timing of these developments reveals two major episodes in the evolution in spatial ability, one 1.5 million years ago and the other one million years later. The two episodes of development in spatial cognition had very different evolutionary contexts. The first was associated with the shift to an open country adaptive niche that occurred early in the time range of Homo erectus. The second was associated with no clear adaptive shift, though it does appear to have coincided with the invasion of more hostile environments and the appearance of systematic hunting of large mammals. Neither, however, occurred in a context of modern hunting and gathering.... The archaeological record of symmetry reveals two of the times at which significant developments in hominid cognition occurred. The first, a million and a half years ago, encompassed cognitive developments necessary to the imposition of shape on artifacts, the coordination of shape recognition (symmetry) and spatial thinking (stone knapping) being the most salient. This evolutionary development was associated with Homo erectus, and the appearance of the first hominid adaptation that was clearly outside the range of an ape adaptive grade. These Homo erectus were not, however, like modern hunter/gatherers in any significant sense; indeed, there are no appropriate analogs living today, and the precise agents selecting for these cognitive abilities are not apparent. The second episode evident from artifactual symmetries occurred a million years later and encompassed the development of modern Euclidean understandings and manipulations of shape and space. This was the also time of the transition from Homo erectus to Archaic Homo sapiens. The appearance of large mammal hunting in the contemporary archaeological record lends some support to evolutionary psychological arguments that hunting may have selected for features of human spatial cognition, either by way of projectile use or navigation. However, given the range of evidence documenting the appearance of many features of hunting and gathering at this time -- not just spatial thinking -- it is perhaps simpler to posit a few developments in associative abilities than a raft of specific cognitive mechanisms. It is also important to reiterate that despite being Homo sapiens, these were not modern hunters and gatherers. They lacked the rich symbolic milieu on which modern humans, including hunters and gatherers, rely. (Emphases mine - VJT.)
Wynn's paper (2002) is a little out-of-date on one point: he asserts that "There is no good reason to think Homo erectus had speech, at least in a modern sense (Wynn 1998)." The upshot is that either Homo erectus or Homo heidelbergensis appears to have been the first true human being. Thus true human intelligence must have emerged either 2 million years ago or 600,000 years ago. In either case, human intelligence emerged first in Africa and dispersed over the globe.vjtorley_{November 27, 2009
November
11
Nov
27
27
2009
12:36 AM
12
12
36
AM
PDT}

Gil, Crows may be better than apes at making tools with brains a fraction of the size. Is brain size all it's cracked up to be? Crow Makes Wire Hook to Get Food
To obtain out-of-reach food, the crow repeatedly took a piece of straight wire and bent it to create a hook. According to the researchers, who report their findings in the August 9, 2002 issue of Science, this behavior suggests that New Caledonian crows "rival nonhuman primates in tool-related cognitive capabilities."
I've seen the same reported about other species in the same family.bb_{November 26, 2009
November
11
Nov
26
26
2009
10:48 PM
10
10
48
PM
PDT}

Mr Nakashima, Jerry’s comments notwithstanding, your point about population genetics was interesting. G. Ledyard Stebbins (one of the architects of the Modern Synthesis) illustrated this very well in his book Processes of Organic Evolution, 2nd ed. The subject was the increase in brain size from the australopithecines to Homo erectus. Stebbins pointed out that the mean brain volume of australopithecines varied from 430-700cc, while that of Homo erectus was 750-1255cc. Based on fossil evidence, the mean brain volume was 700 cc 900,000 years ago, and 300,000 years later the mean was about 1,000 cc. The brain in this lineage had increased 43% in 300,000 years. He writes (my emphasis):
From the point of view of the fossil record as a whole, this rate of advance is spectacularly rapid… From the point of view of genetics, however, this order of change is remarkably slow. The geneticist thinks in terms of the amount of variation existing in a population in each generation, and the change in mean value for a character which is produced by selection from one generation to another. When we express in these terms the evolutionary changes in the size of the human brain, we obtain the following results. In modern man, the differences in size between the largest and the smallest brains found in any one population is about 16 per cent of the mean size. Assuming that the range of variation in a population is about the same as in earlier species, this would lead us to conclude that the difference between the largest and the smallest brains in a population of Homo erectus was about 160 cc, and in australopithecines about 80 cc. Now the increase in mean size postulated above was 300 cc in 300,000 years. Even allowing for errors and changes in the rate of evolution, an increase of 200 cc in 100,000 years is the most rapid we could ever expect to find. What does this mean in in terms of the amount of increase in the mean value per generation, compared to the variability existing in one generation? Assuming that the average human generation of 25 years, the period of 100,000 years represents 4,000 generations. Consequently, an increase of in brain size of 200 cc during this period means that the mean size has increased only 0.05 cc per generation! At this rate, the amount of increase each generation is only a tiny fraction, less than 1/20 of one per cent, of the variation present in in any one generation (Figure 8-5). It is many times smaller than the increase in mean value for quantitative characteristics which have been subjected to artificial selection by breeders working with crop plants and domestic animals. These calculations demonstrate dramatically what slow rates of response to natural selection are needed to bring about even the most rapid evolution which is recorded by sequences of fossils.
Dave Wisker_{November 26, 2009
November
11
Nov
26
26
2009
09:45 PM
9
09
45
PM
PDT}

"the selection pressure necessary to acheive the changes from t0 to now" What selection pressures? When did all this happen and how did it spread to a species that is as probably as wide spread as any on the planet. All the so called evolutionary things that happened to humans must have happened prior to any groups leaving Africa. So you have to hypothesize that all these wonderful things that humans are capable of were part of the species when they were roaming central Africa plains, 100,000 years ago. All those hunter gathers had the genes to build super computers. Once they left the genie was out of the bottle and the selection to achieve all are so called capabilities would have been so diffuse as to be meaningless. This is why evolutionary biology is pure Bulls__t. There is no way the necessary gene flow and subsequent selection could have happened. The most likely explanation is an unique event. How about the monolith in 2001.jerry_{November 26, 2009
November
11
Nov
26
26
2009
08:43 PM
8
08
43
PM
PDT}

Mr Dodgen, I'm not a population genetecist, but I think that if you throw those probabilistic resources together in some kind of equation, what you will really be solving for is the selectioini pressure necessary to acheive the changes from t0 to now. And then you can ask if that answer accords with the value of the changes posited to have occured, speech, culture, etc. Those things were very valuable, as you have demonstrated.Nakashima_{November 26, 2009
November
11
Nov
26
26
2009
07:54 PM
7
07
54
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 7 8 9 10 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply