Dear Al,
My comments are all about the original post by @AntoineSuarez and subsequent comments by him, which I quoted. I did not mean to imply that you have proposed anything like his idea.
The GLF is very interesting, and I can see why it is especially interesting in the context of a discussion on personhood in humans. I doubt whether a simple genetic/epigenetic switch accounts for it, but yes it’s interesting and perhaps even remarkable.
I think you’re creating a really dangerous equivocation here between cultural development and human dignity. Yes, the Aborigenes were less technologically advanced than colonists, but that doesn’t mean they were less human. I think the option that must be avoided in these discussions is a sliding scale of human dignity depending on some measure of cultural advancement.
No, Helen Keller always was fully human. Profoundly disabled humans are fully human. I believe that Neanderthals could use symbols.
Antoine, we seem to be in agreement in postulating that ‘Homo sapiens animals’ became ‘personal humans’ by some non-genetic process. We seem to part company on what happens afterward. I believe that the mechanism will eventually be understood in naturalistic terms, terms that even an agnostic could agree with. I believe that all processes in Nature depend on God in this way. But I would be very wary of declaring that “God would do this or that” because we think he should, for example, "ensure that the human body is the observable basis for assigning rights". That not only presumes we know what God knows, but it opens up a can of worms in making the ‘observable human body’ so important in assigning rights.
I do enjoy our conversation, tho. I learn more from folks I disagree with than from those I am in total agreement. Let’s keep it going.
Al Leo
As you and @BradKramer have both noted, I am skating on some pretty thin ice here. That bothers me. But perhaps it may help clarify what some of the opponents in the “human vs. subhuman” debates really mean. Take Helen Keler’s case as an example:
As a 19 month old girl, Helen was on her way toward becoming “fully human”. Did her disability rob her of humanity? Certainly NOT. But did it change the type of human she seemed destined to become? Certainly! If I am not mistaken, beaglelady considers Neaderthals to be human. I would like to spend some time trying to communicate with one, but after many failed attempts to find subjects for conversation, I would hate to be married to one. The movie “The Miracle Worker” may have exaggerated somewhat, but one could not have had a conversation with Helen as a teenager. Living with her was a sort of Hell. (True with some teenagers today.) To a real extent, Anne Sullivan was her “birth mother”, allowing Helen to become a operational member of human society. That, after all, is a significant milestone of ‘becoming human’.
PS Do you have a reference to back your belief that Neanderthals understood symbolism?
Al Leo
I just clicked ‘like’ on your post. You will see my reply when i answered beaglelady. I appreciate your putting up with me this long.
Al Leo
Yes, and you fought in a war against a madman who decided that certain ethnic groups and disabled people were sub-human.
I would say that she was fully human at that age, not just on her way to that state.
Yes, you could see that article I posted earlier. And I just found this Scientific American article. Or this article from NPR
Many thanks to all of you for this vivid discussion: In my view it reveals that we are debating something important and contributing with novel arguments to clarify the origins of humanity. I thank in particular Stephen for his definite commitment
I fully share this commitment.
I also completely agree with Brad’s remark:
With this common ground I think it is worth continuing this conversation: I am convinced that we can achieve a “GLF” in the task of giving a coherent account of the Origins integrating Science, Scripture and Theology. As Denis Alexander says: “If all truth is God’s truth, as Christians believe, such a task should surely be possible”
On my part I ask for your understanding if I cannot always immediately answer but I have a deadline for a submission on “quantum contextuality and divine omniscience”. Nonetheless, during the weekend I should be able to post a comment taking account of the last (really stimulating!) objections that have been posted.
Just noticed this. Are you saying that only humans have a larynx? What is a vocal programming event?
Dear Antoine,
Thanks for taking the time to respond. As it seems that finding time to respond is hard, I’ll try to be brief –
You mentioned: “Assuming that there is biological discontinuity along with this “spiritual transformation” looks like invoking a “miraculous intervention” of God, somewhat in line with Intelligent Design. I think one can consistently explain things without invoking such a “miraculous intervention”
Embuing a body with a spirit is a miraculous intervention of God any way you look at it, and therefore not anything susceptible to useful argumentation. From my vantage point and for all practical purposes evolution the best available scientific explanation on the origin of species, a process of nature which I would wholeheartedly call an intelligently designed process by which God had His creation unfold in time. I assume this is not a point we disagree with.
Where we possibly disagree is in the origin of homo personalis. It seems to me after these discussions that the gist of your argument is: you observe the elimination of intermediate varieties, and assign “personhood rights” based on clear differences between the varieties that remain. If this is so, you are dodging the question, are you not? Evolution may have removed for you the cases that are tricky to decide, but you encounter the tricky cases again when you go back in time before written records of law allow “certification” of personhood, and closer to the point where the varieties were not all that different. And as we discussed, technology could likely pose the problem again in the future by “blurring the boundaries between humanity and non-human species and destroy evolution’s work.” (also in your response to Mervin_Bitikofer) Silly that might be, but how do we answer when that happens?
This is why in my opinion we need to look for characteristics of personhood that are do not exclusively depend on genetic closeness to clearly accepted persons, or to a particular way of expressing “law”, or ultimately, to the point in time of existence. Hence my comment on the importance of self-awareness. That seems to me like one essential characteristic of all persons. [And it may also be part of a different discussion.]
Many thanks again,
Miguel
Sorry, I thought it pretty well known that the Homo sapiens larynx had decended lower in the throat than in ancestral primates, thus allowing a much larger range of vocal sounds. This, as well as changes in the Broca’s area of the brain might have been essential in acquiring effective communication thru language. The best presentation of this hypothesis (that I am aware of) is in in Tattersall’s “Becoming Human,” a book you would enjoy, beaglelady.
Al Leo
But that isn’t what you said! You said nothing about the descent of the human larynx. You said,
“But only Homo sapiens had the other features (larynx, Broca’s area??) that allowed an initial “programming event” to be passed on to others vocally;”
And that is what I was addressing.
Al, with all due respect, I am not aware of that evidence, and would love to see a source. As far as I know (and I am not an expert) the Upper Paleolithic Revolution, or the GLP began in Africa, and one of its results was the migration out to the Middle East, then Europe and Asia and Australia. So, all H. Sapiens, including Australians are “children” of the same UPR event, if that’s what it was. My understanding of the date was something between 70,000 (around the time of a major volcanic event leading to climate change) and 50,000 ya. Some anthropologists even doubt there was even a sudden event at all. I dont know, but would love to see the references you mention.
I realize that I am taking up too much space on this Forum, and so I skipped a full explanation. So very briefly: As you probably know, a baby is born with its larynx high in its throat so it is easy to breathe and suck milk simultaneously. At about age two it has descended so that its vocal range is much increased, enabling the child to modulate sounds to the degree required for speech and singing. There is good evidence (but perhaps not overwhelming) that this did not occur in any Homo species prior to sapiens. So, in addition to the “brain programming” I have postulated, these two developments seem to have been necessary before the GLF could have been spread so rapidly through language. Make sense?
Al Leo
You are correct, Sy. There isn’t 100% agreement. Since neither of us has done any research in this field, both of us must choose the expert(s) we think most reliable. My “choice” sources are: Ian Tattersall, “Becoming Human” & “Masters of the Planet”; and Simon Conway Morris, “Life’s Solutions….”. I have asked myself if I chose these defenders of the Great Leap Forward because that fits the World view I have already espoused? Possibly. But I am most impressed that Richard Dawkins also accepts the evidence for GLF even though it “flies in the teeth” of all the evidence he has assembled for Darwinian evolution which proceeds in tiny steps with no direction. It is amazing, but he agrees with Pope John II’s proclamation humans are an exception to all other life in the way they have evolved.
In terms of timeline, the evidence (cave art, grave goods, etc) is strongest in Europe and not much earlier than 40 K BP. The term Upper Paleolithic Revolution refers to stone tool making technology, which is a totally different use of the word, Culture, than what I refer to.
Al Leo
Thanks. Yes I was aware of the Neanderthal shell necklace find. I agree that it shows that Neanderthals were more self-aware than, say, chimpanzees, and appreciated self-adornment. But that falls far short of burials with valuable grave goods in terms of appreciating symbolism.
Al Leo
Al, I totally agree with your first paragraph. I do think that the GLF happened, and that it was more or less revolutionary. (I really dont think it matters that much how “sudden” it was). I simply related that not everyone in the field agrees. But the real issue for me is the timing, which does make a difference. That relates to whether the change (call it a leap or a revolution doesnt matter) happened in Africa, or elsewhere is critically important.
[quote=“aleo, post:76, topic:27852”] In terms of timeline, the evidence (cave art, grave goods, etc) is strongest in Europe and not much earlier than 40 K BP.
[/quote]
You still have provided no citation for the figure of 40,000 ya, which would imply that people left Africa first, and then the change happened, (presumably in Europe.). I have not seen that assertion anywhere, and am waiting for you to supply it. In fact, Jared Diamond in the Third Chimpanzee includes the migration of people out of Africa as an inherent part of the GLF. The fact that cave art appears not much earlier than 40K is not relevant, since it took a long time for humans to reach Europe, and more time for the European humans to grow in population size. Older artefacts have been found in the Mideast.
Please, take all the space you need. I realize this stuff about the human larynx. (And its position leaves us humans prone to choking!)
What is the evidence that this positioning of the larynx did not occur an any Homo species before Homo sapiens ? btw, the human foxp2 gene, so critical for proper language usage, is identical to the Neanderthal version. So it was probably present in the common ancestor of both species. Pease view this rather old video from the American Museum of Natural History.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.