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 âHomo sapiens animalsâ became âpersonal humansâ 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 âGod would do this or thatâ 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 âobservable human bodyâ 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. Letâs 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 âhuman vs. subhumanâ debates really mean. Take Helen Kelerâs case as an example:
As a 19 month old girl, Helen was on her way toward becoming âfully humanâ. 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 âThe Miracle Workerâ 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 âbirth motherâ, allowing Helen to become a operational member of human society. That, after all, is a significant milestone of âbecoming humanâ.
PS Do you have a reference to back your belief that Neanderthals understood symbolism?
Al Leo
I just clicked âlikeâ 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 Bradâs remark:
With this common ground I think it is worth continuing this conversation: I am convinced that we can achieve a âGLFâ in the task of giving a coherent account of the Origins integrating Science, Scripture and Theology. As Denis Alexander says: âIf all truth is Godâs truth, as Christians believe, such a task should surely be possibleâ
On my part I ask for your understanding if I cannot always immediately answer but I have a deadline for a submission on âquantum contextuality and divine omniscienceâ. 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, Iâll try to be brief â
You mentioned: âAssuming that there is biological discontinuity along with this âspiritual transformationâ looks like invoking a âmiraculous interventionâ of God, somewhat in line with Intelligent Design. I think one can consistently explain things without invoking such a âmiraculous interventionâ
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 âpersonhood rightsâ 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 âcertificationâ 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 âblurring the boundaries between humanity and non-human species and destroy evolutionâs work.â (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 âlawâ, 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 Brocaâs 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 Tattersallâs âBecoming Human,â a book you would enjoy, beaglelady.
Al Leo
But that isnât what you said! You said nothing about the descent of the human larynx. You said,
âBut only Homo sapiens had the other features (larynx, Brocaâs area??) that allowed an initial âprogramming eventâ to be passed on to others vocally;â
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 âchildrenâ of the same UPR event, if thatâs 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.
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 âbrain programmingâ 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 isnât 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 âchoiceâ sources are: Ian Tattersall, âBecoming Humanâ & âMasters of the Planetâ; and Simon Conway Morris, âLifeâs SolutionsâŚ.â. 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 âflies in the teethâ 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 IIâs 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 âsuddenâ 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=âaleo, post:76, topic:27852â] 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.
[quote=âbeaglelady, post:65, topic:27852â]
{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., âBecoming Humanâ infers a process that takes place over a span of time. Iâm 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, âHuman Life begins at the moment of conception.â 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 âhumanizationâ is a process, even if the final step is an âeventâ.) 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 âevolveâ 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 beforeâa 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 âimage bearersâ 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 thisâmaking more than one immortal soul as pregnancy proceedsâjust 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 withâwhich is NOT what we see as either black or white.
@Christy do you first teach your kids the Truth as tho it was âblack or whiteâ with some sort of admonition to expect some âexpansionâ of that truth as they mature? Is that being dishonest? I donât think so.
Al Leo
DNA sequencing from fossil bones is a tricky business, and I donât 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