The Elimination of Intermediate Varieties: How Evolution Lays the Groundwork for Assigning Rights

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.

5 posts were split to a new topic: My theory about the Flood

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.

1 Like

We need to get @Jimpithecus on the line.

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.

3 Likes

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.

[quote=“beaglelady, post:65, topic:27852”]
{Al Leo} As a 19 month old girl, Helen [Keller] was on her way toward becoming "fully human".

I would say that she was fully human at that age, not just on her way to that state.

@beaglelady You have zeroed in on the problem that bothers me most about my hypothesis; i.e., “Becoming Human” infers a process that takes place over a span of time. I’m OK with that on a historical scale. But what about our history as an individual? If we are to truly value human dignity, then we must truly value the potential that exist at every stage in that process. This is a rational and convincing argument that I can make to a mature Christian. I do NOT think it is the correct method to teach a 4 or 5 year old just starting his/her journey of Faith. Simple Faith is best served with statements that are in black or white. For example, “Human Life begins at the moment of conception.” Not potential human life, but a life that is totally human.

I am comfortable if that is the way all children are taught. I presume that is the approach Christy and the other home schoolers take. (God bless them!) However,by the time the kids reach their teens, and start studying biology at length, I would like the more curious ones, the more skeptical, to have access to the explanation I offered above: that the process of becoming human must be valued and respected.(Note the belief in evolution implies that ‘humanization’ is a process, even if the final step is an ‘event’.) They should learn that even as merely seeds of humanity, sperm and egg, deserve respect in view of the billions of years it took to ‘evolve’ the information they contain. When sperm and egg join in conception, a much greater respect is called for, since the probable outcome is a new human being the world has never seen before–a creature that has the potential to become imago Dei.

But as the biology student will soon learn, there are some major obstacles that stand in the way of the new zygote. Implantation is the first. If it implants in the Fallopian tube, it has no real chance of survival and endangers the life of the mother-to-be as well. An estimated 20% (some say up to 50%) of zygotes fail to implant in the uterus before the mother is aware of pregnancy. If implantation is isuccessful, invagination is the next major obstacle. When the neural tube fails to close properly, the resulting spina bifida may be disabling, but the embryo can still proceed to become fully human. If the invagination is severe, the cells that should become brain never develop, and anencephaly results. Some anencephalic fetuses survive until birth, but without a brain, never have the chance to become “image bearers” in any real sense of the term.

Even disregarding the obstacles enumerated above, there is a rational difficulty with declaring a human life has begun at the moment of conception. Traditional dogma states that conception of a single zygote results in the creation of a single immortal soul belonging to one fully human being. But fairly often, up to four cell divisions, monozygotic twins can result, and then more than one fully human being exists. Of course God is comfortable with this–making more than one immortal soul as pregnancy proceeds–just as he is comfortable with quite a few conceptions (zygotes) that fail to make the grade as fully human. It is up to us to accommodate our religious dogmas, our world views, to what God obviously is comfortable with–which is NOT what we see as either black or white.

@Christy do you first teach your kids the Truth as tho it was ‘black or white’ with some sort of admonition to expect some ‘expansion’ of that truth as they mature? Is that being dishonest? I don’t think so.
Al Leo

DNA sequencing from fossil bones is a tricky business, and I don’t know if the evidence acquired in 2006 has been confirmed (in regard to Fox2). Has the Paabo group at Max Planck published on this? Tattersall, who has now retired from the American Museum of Natural History, was pretty adamant in his view that the level of language needed to form larger, more effective societies emerged only after the GLF. But this may never be confirmed.
Al Leo

I don’t think it is being dishonest to simplify complex things and leave out possible nuances and exceptions for a child. But I also often tell my children “I’m not sure. Some people think this, other people think this,” on a lot of gray area issues. I don’t think kids need black and white answers for everything. If my kids asked if a fertilized egg were fully human I wouldn’t give them a black and white answer because I don’t think there is one, and I don’t see why a child would need one.

Do we have reason to doubt this?

It has. And yes they have.

In my opinion, when you post claims about these topics, you have an obligation to do some basic reading. The answers to your questions are as easily accessible as this forum is.

1 Like

Al Leo and Christy: You are addressing a point which deserves to be discussed more in depth.

In my view, it is not the same to argue
assuming that there are not yet persons in the world,
as assuming that: there are already persons in the world.

We have to distinguish between two different questions:

Question 1:
How can we ascertain the time T at which the first human persons were created by God?

Question 2:
Suppose a Community after time T which is ruled by human persons according to the foundation of law. How can we ascertain whether a creature living in this Community deserves or not the status of person and therefore the fundamental right to life?

As argued in my Essay and preceding posts:

The answer to Question 1 is: Vestiges revealing sense of law.

The answer to Question 2 is: The living human body

It would be a fallacy to confuse the answers and
take the answer to Question 1 for the answer to Question 2,
or vice versa
the answer to Question 2 for the answer to Question 1.

The answer to Question 2 (The living human body) implies among other things that:

Any human embryo is a human person,

where:

  • A cell entity which derives from the fusion of a human sperm and a human egg, and does not have DIANA anomalies is a human embryo.
  • The term DIANA refers to anomalies that Directly Inhibit the Appearance of Neural Activity.

For further reading see my edited book Is this Cell a Human Being?.

Sorry, but a human being is a person. How sad that I should even have to point that out…how sad!

1 Like