Robert, my increasingly eloquent arch-nemesis ;-): ... Why did Darwin invite her to his room? ... Booth Tucker. She witnessed Darwin calling the book of Hebrews the "Royal Book". Darwin requested that Tucker speak to some neighbours, he requested that she speak to them about, "Christ Jesus and his salvation." He even encouraged hymns to be sung.
Yes, and as I've repeatedly said, there is absolutely nothing about evolutionary theory that contradicts deeply held Christian beliefs. Christianity, as a symbol system and a "moral compass," has absolutely nothing to say about the process of DNA recombination, about descent with modification, about extinct species, or indeed about most modern science. Conversely, modern science is "value-neutral" and does not offer moral guidance, which is the exclusive balliwick of religion. These two "ways of knowing" about the universe only appear to contradict each other when we try to use one where we should be using the other. They are, in fact, completely orthagonal.
: In "Try taking your hands off your eyes..." (April 26, 1999) Farinata said: "Yes it is. In fact, it's what speciation is all about, according to the sciences. The point at which two similar races can no longer interbreed is when they become separate species; thus, the above is a valid example."
: That's fairly clear to me. I read her to say that one race will not be able to breed with another race if they remain isolated long enough. She even gave the Martian example a few posts later to reinforce this view. To which I would say, extreme rubbish!
Yes, well, that's entirely different from saying that races are separate species. Surely you can see that, can't you? The point after which two creatures are not biologically similar enough to produce viable offspring has to be the point at which they've speciated, since species are defined by reproductive isolation. Human "races" have no biological validity whatsoever. The term "race" might be useful when discussing dogs or horses, but it is not applicable to humans. In fact, dogs provide a perfect example of Farinata's point. A male great dane can not, physically, sire a child with a female chihuahua, even though they are genetically almost identical (they share common ancestor less than 10,000 years ago). This is what Farinata and I are talking about-the "Mars" example could eventually have the same effect.
I'll break it down for you. DNA is an extremely complex molecule. Unlike most other molecules, it has the special property of being able to make copies of itself. These copies are not always absolutely perfect however, some errors are introduced during replication. An analogy might be the copies of manuscripts made by scribes in the Medieval period in Europe. If one scribe made a mistake, for example, put a "p" where he wanted a "q", every copy that was made from his copy would have the "p" instead of the "q". Later scribes would probably make similar mistakes in other words, and if the document was sufficiently long, the odds of catching any specific error would be small. If the book was copied enough times by enough subsequent generations of scribes, eventually a big enough chunk of the book would be composed of these "accumulated errors" in reproduction that it would hardly be recognizable as the same book. This is, in fact, exactly how literary historians trace the sequence of pre-Gutenberg manuscripts, by the way, and one of the ways in which the age of a manuscript can be estimated (e.g. "that "q" has already changed to a "p," but the "m" in this word hasn't been changed to the "n" we see in later editions").
DNA works exactly the same way. At what point could we say that this is no longer the "same book" that was originally written? That depends on a lot of things. However, if a second copy was being made, from exactly the same original, what are the odds that exactly the same mistakes would have been made in exactly the same places? Almost zero, right? Ok, fast forward after a few hundred or so copies of this book, and one person looks at a copy that has resulted from one "lineage" of scribes and compares it to a book from the other "lineage." Are the two books the same as the original? No. They have each accumulated a uniques series of errors where the hundreds of scribes each made a few tiny mistakes. Are the two nth generation copies the same as each other? No. They have different errors in different places. If enough copies were made, by a large enough number of scribes, the accumulated errors could have resulted in enough change that people who are used to one version don't even recognize the other as having a similar origin.
That's how DNA works, and that is what Farinata and I were talking about with so-called "races." Now, does that make sense?
: That was my point all along that stooping "ape-men" were imaginary. So why did you criticize me then, and now you are conciliatory towards the imaginary (ie. stooping doesn't exist) part?
Actually, if you'll recall, that was during the period where I was not responding to your posts, so I did not criticize you at all. Nor am I being particularly conciliatory now. It is true that the illustration you are refering to is somewhat misleading. However, the fact that the artist who painted this "got it wrong" means absolutely nothing. As I mentioned, the original painting was done in the 1960s, before much was known about Pleistocene hominids. Much of it was therefore speculative. So what? The "alchemists" of the Elizabethan era, and their Greek and Roman predecessors believed that the universe was composed of only four elements, earth, air, fire and water. That mistake does not discredit modern chemistry or physics. That's not a particularly good argument, Robert. We can't logically discredit an entire field of knowledge based on mistakes made by people of the past. For example, I've seen paintings of Jesus and Mary that show them as blonde-haired, and Nordic looking. Most likely, the residents of Palestine 2000 years ago did not look like that. Does that invalidate Christianity? No, of course not! Neither does the "walking guys" painting discredit evolution. Let that argument go, Robert, it's not logically valid.
: I've visited the museum in the Neandertal valley near Dusseldorf. They have a "Neandertal" maniquin smartly dressed up in a business suit.
So? I went to the circus once as a child, and saw a chimp wearing a red jacket and hat. So what? I have also seen humans dressed as gorillas. This is totally beside the point, don't you think?
:Now, hasn't that been my point all along, that there is less than truth in advertising going on here.
In what way? Did the sign at the exhibit imply that Homo neanderthalensis actually wore business suits? I sincerely doubt it.
:After all this is 1999 not 1960 and the deceptive exhibit (ie. that he is somehow our recent ancestor) still stands. You have admitted this is not true yourself above.
Not really. Saying that our cousins are not our ancestors is simple logic, Robert, but it is fundamentally different from saying that we are not related, which was your earlier claim. I don't claim we are decended from neandertals, but we are certainly related to them, actually very closely. For example; you are not the son of your cousin, you are the son of your mother and father. Does that mean that your cousin is not related to you? Not by any system of measuring kinship with which I am familiar.
However, concerning your 1999 vs. 1960 comment, the DNA evidence which demonstrates the phylogenic split of the H. neanderthalensis line from our own is also relatively new. Krings and colleagues just released their analysis less than two years ago. I don't know how long ago the exhibit to which you are refering was made. If the exhibit still suggests, today, that we are direct descendents of them, I would appreciate you informing the museum's director of this reference:
Krings, M., A. Stone, R. W. Schmitz, K. Krainitzki, M. Stoneking, and S. Paabo
(1997) Neandertal DNA Sequences and the Origins of Modern Humans. Cell 90:19-30.
This article explains that, despite the undisputable fact that we share a common ancestor, neandertals did not evolve into anatomically modern humans, but were a side branch of our family tree that became extinct roughly 35,000 years ago. I hope I've explained this to you sufficiently this time.
: Floyd, you are brutal.
I'm trying to be as gentle as possible. Sorry.
:Perhaps we'll have a socialist salad somewhere. Cheers.
How about an anti-statist antipasti or some Kropotkin-ite crackers with Godwin-ist gorgonzola and a few pints of Bakuninite beer? ;-)
-Floyd
