What are those avenues of research? What areas of research would benefit from an ID perspective? What grants have you or your colleagues written up lately that are based on ID? Do you have research plans for 2017? We can talk about this until the cows come home, but without a robust research program, ID won’t be going anywhere.
Ann Gauger's latest salvo against Dennis Venema's arguments against an original pair of human beings
1 Like
It’s been some time since I read any papers on the subject, but I do remember a lot of work being done on the gene FOXP2. Mutations in the gene result in deficits in language and speech. The chimp gene is different from the human gene in at least one aa residue, but if memory serves the Neanderthal gene is identical to the human gene. Some scientists were even hypothesizing that modern humans may have acquired the Neanderthal FOXP2 gene through interbreeding (along with up to 5% of our genome in some modern populations).
For me, I see this all going back to creationism. Why would any Christian youth, or adult for that matter, believe that finding a natural process disproves the existence of God unless they were taught that as part of creationism? It is creationists who are agreeing with the type of atheist your son spoke to, saying that if evolution is true then there is no God.
Or it could be that I have this all wrong and there are other theological problems with evolution. However, given your ability to potentially reconcile the two I don’t believe this is the case. Anyway, food for thought . . .
1 Like
Hi Ann,
I agree with you that any being who can paint has a soul, and I think true human beings must have appeared at least 300,000 years ago. I also think the Neandertals were human.
The blade tools at Kathu Pan look quite impressive, I agree. They appear to date from about 500,000 years ago. The Master Hand Axe, dated to 750,000 years ago, is especially beautiful. However, I can tell you that most hand-axes in the archaeological record don’t look anything like as beautiful, and are pretty easy to make (see here), so I’m not sure what to think.
Finally, I agree that brain size doesn’t settle the matter when it comes to ensoulment, but let me ask you this: do you really believe that Homo erectus possessed all of the spiritual capacities that we do - for art, drama, philosophy, religion and language? If he did, then where’s the evidence for it? If he didn’t, then aren’t you in effect making him some sort of inferior being - in other words, sub-human? Certainly, it’s true that some human individuals lack some or all of these capacities, but I respectfully submit that it makes no sense to say that an entire race of human beings could be lacking them. Cheers.
3 Likes
It’s an interesting question. The only unchallenged Neanderthal symbolic behavior is the famous “hashtag” in Gibraltar, dated to about 40 kya. It is roughly equivalent to the graphic symbols in S. Africa dated to about 77 kya. Based on this, one could argue that Neanderthals were 37,000 years behind us, but on the same trajectory of development. Neanderthal is also (so far) the only other species with a hyoid bone, which is necessary to produce the full range of human speech sounds, particularly vowels.
o> …but let me ask you this: do you really believe that Homo erectus possessed all of the spiritual capacities that we do - for art, drama, philosophy, religion and language? If he did, then where’s the evidence for it? If he didn’t, then aren’t you in effect making him some s>o rt of inferior being - in other words, sub-human?
First of all, our full capacity for art, drama, philosophy, religion and language was not present 300,000 years ago. Nor was it present, it could be argued until the Egyptians, the early Greeks, and the Chinese had their cultural flowering. I don’t know enough archeology to pin point it precisely as to time and place. But it wasn’t 10,000 years ago. Technology and the arts build on top of one another, often exponentially, unless some disaster wipes out a civilization with a particular skill that no one else knows.
I have thought about the long lag. I don’t think it makes Homo erectus subhuman necessarily. There was a lag in culture foe Neanderthals, and one for modern humans at 300,000 years ago. Things didn’t start to accelerate until 100,000 years ago really. From Blombos cave in S Africa 100,000 years ago:
For me, I see this all going back to creationism. Why would any Christian youth, or adult for that matter, believe that finding a natural process disproves the existence of God unless they were taught that as part of creationism?
If they are taught in school that the universe came into being as the result of quantum fluctuations, that the stars and the earth are the result of successive birth of stars and death by supernovas, that all of life can be explained, including the first life, by the assembly of organic molecules, and after the first cell, the process of evolution, then students who are exposed to materialistic, atheist ideas without the tools to cope with them, and even if they come from a non-creationist, science-favorable home, if they have any doubts at all about God, will turn toward atheism of simple agnosticism all to easily. Why would you think it happens only in Creationist homes?
I am not free to tell you. We have a number of scientific research projects going on now, based on ID ideas. I can’t tell you because many of the projects are in mainstream universities, with professors who would lose a great deal if the work was revealed prematurely.
But let me repeat, much work that is being done today comes from an ID perspective–that of expecting function rather than junk, even though the researchers themselves would not say so. The ENCODE project is a prime example, as are those who look for functions for lncRNAs, pseudogenes etc.
I can tell you of one project–the unique human origins project. The papers describing the algorithm have been written and published, and coding is rapidly underway.
I also outlined the basis for another project concerning HLA gene diversity with clear predictions that someone could take up. Just give me credit it if you do.
Just to put this all into context, I am an atheist so I am trying to ask these questions more from an outsider trying to get the opinions of an insider.
I would think it would happen more often in homes where natural explanations are labeled as materialistic, atheistic ideas. At least from my perspective, the Big Bang being caused by a quantum fluctuation is no more problematic for christians than lightning being caused by circulating clouds. If God can use thunderclouds to make lightning, then why not use quantum fluctuations to create universes, or chemistry to create life. Is there some sort of horizon, beyond which there can be no more natural explanations in Christian theology?
4 Likes
They defined function as being transcribed into RNA which doesn’t seem like a reliable indicator of function with respect to fitness. At some point, there has to be a dividing line between function and “does something”. Even the trash in our trash cans does something, even if it is release odor molecules into the air. That doesn’t mean they are functional.
If your work is able to go past “does something” it will be a very interesting read.
2 Likes
If God can use thunderclouds to make lightning, then why not use quantum fluctuations to create universes, or chemistry to create life. Is there some sort of horizon, beyond which there can be no more natural explanations in Christian theology?
No, the key is if they are taught that science answers it all, as if God were unnecessary, or a fable, and no one has given them good reasons to believe, rational reasons, then they are likely to walk away from faith.
1 Like
They defined function as being transcribed into RNA which doesn’t seem like a reliable indicator of function with respect to fitness.
Agreed. So now the hard work comes of looking for and proving function.
The mental picture I have is if a Christian is not taught one way or the other as it concerns science and faith and the come upon an atheist who says that science disproves God, why would they believe the atheist?
It could also be that I am a bit naïve, and my own experiences in the church have colored my expectations a bit. I never had a problem reconciling science and Christianity, and that included my time getting a degree in biology. Of course, it may have helped that many of my profs were Methodists. The reasons I left the church had nothing to do with the intersection of science and faith. It just turned out to be a lack of faith.
2 Likes
If one of the investigators happens to be an expert on metabolomics I would love to see an whole organism energy budget that includes the amount of energy spent on transcription, and how much impact junk RNA has on that budget. Of course, this will differ depending on the species (endotherms and exotherms), but I have always wondered if the cost of junk RNA is high or low.
Anyway, I look forward to seeing how you filter out junk RNA/protein and determine what has function.
Fair enough. I just know that it happens.
1 Like
Listening to you, and rolling for a bit with what you’ve been saying, I wonder if one could draw a useful line between evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology and all that comes with it. After all, it is in evolutionary psychology — explanations of psychology, sociology, morality, behavior, culture, religion, etc. through an evolutionary framework — that I see the worst examples of the “just so” stories to which you have referred. This is also where evolutionary theory steps most squarely on the toes of religion and “overlaps” on their “magisterium.” It’s the realm of things like beauty and goodness, which find such satisfying explanations in theistic thought.
To me, a line between evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology could be a much better place to stake our battle lines — if indeed battle lines must be staked, which is not a settled question for me — than various other lines where people have dug their trenches: micro- vs. macroevolution, historical vs. observational science, irreducible vs. reducible complexity, junk vs. functional DNA, and so forth.
What do you think?
2 Likes
I am happy to draw a line through evolutionary psychology. It is indeed a place of many just so stories. It might be a temporary refuge though. I think we still have too many disagreements on basic views of the origins of biology—that these views while we can continue to discuss them may not be reconcilable. Not without hard evidence anyway.
D[quote=“agauger, post:241, topic:36790”]
To
[/quote]
Thanks. It’s a good idea. We found a considerable cost of expression in bacteria, and others have as well. Bacteria will generate duplicates and then delete them within a few cell divisions. The turnover is remarkably rapid. So it would be interesting to see what the case is in eukaryotes. Michael Lynch’s case depends on their not being a sufficient carrying cost.
I’m sure you’re right that our views aren’t reconcilable. And even if they were reconcilable, I doubt that either of us has the time in our busy lives to get to the point where they would be. =)
I also agree that drawing the line at the break between evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology would likely be a “temporary refuge.” The line would be fuzzy at best, and difficult to defend in debate. I just thought it would be a more defensible line than some of the others that have been proposed.
And it has been helpful for me to try and see the situation through your eyes, particular with your son’s apostasy. I suppose we could all do with a bit of humility to see that people leave the faith for all sorts of reasons — some because they see no evidence for God at all (your point) and others because they’ve been told they have to choose between science and faith (@Jay313’s point). EC solves some problems but is arguably more vulnerable to others. Praying for those who stray from faith in both directions could, theoretically, be a place where Christians from various origins camps could find common ground on our knees in intercession.
I wish you well in your pursuit of truth, and pray that you and your colleagues may have the strength to continue pursuing truth in the face of overwhelming opposition. I’m not convinced of the truth of ID (yet, anyway), but at least it’s helpful to me to have dialogued with and listened to you a bit and seen a bit of the human side of your movement. It will help me to remember this next time I am frustrated with some of the more strident ID materials I run across. =)
Your brother in Christ,
AMW
5 Likes
Deep RNA sequencing has led to a lot of curiosity about non-coding RNAs. I don’t think it’s entirely accurate to suggest that ID perspective is the driving force behind the renewed interest.
3 Likes