Hi Russ,
I am glad that someone has been reading my anthro posts. Sometimes one
wonders.
At 05:09 PM 2/9/00 -0600, Russell Maatman wrote:
>ASA friends:
>We have no
>means of knowing that fossils, behavior associated with the living beings
>which became fossilized, and the structure of those beings and say, "These
>beings were created in the image of God." God could have created beings
>which seemed to be like us, but which did not bear his image.
I have very serious problems with this view. Given Christianity's terrible
history on the racial issues, especially down here in the south where I
grew up, the very concept of people who look like us and act like us, but
aren't human, is a frightening philosophical position. While we have come a
long way from my childhood when I remember white's only drinking fountains,
there are still people around who would love to return to those days.
Witness the terrible incident at Jasper, Tx a couple of years go. I know
you are not of this philosophical bent, but I will fight this view as hard
as I can.
>Now, concerning the problems with these six points. For Point (7), some of
>the fossil evidence I have seen cited on this listserv are the following:
>Three million years ago (mya) an Australopithecine picked up a stone
>because he saw a human face on it; 2.6 mya Australopithecines could plan
>days ahead (they could butcher in places they had not made the butchering
>tools and then later return the tools); for a 2.5 mya hominid, apparently a
>tool-user, bones had been cut and broken; a 2.34 mya old tool factory has
>been discovered; 800 thousand years ago (kya) hominids crossed the sea to
>colonize Indonesian islands; there were "industries" in northern Spain by
>ca. 400 kya; _Homo erectus_ of 350-424 kya built a village, with campsite,
>shelters, hearths, workshops, paved area, small tools, engraved sets of
>lines indicating abstract thinking, and an altar; between 233 and 800 kya
>_Homo erectus_ modified a stone to make it look like a female figure;
>anatomically modern Neanderthal was in Europe 35 kya; Neanderthal
>sophisticated artwork of 32-35 kya has been found; and 11.5 kya skull in
>Brazil similar to Australian aborigine, proving the ability to sail great
>distances.
>
>For point (8) some of the DNA and hemoglobin evidence I have seen cited on
>this listserv are the following: hemoglobin data seems to relate us to
>hominids of 400 kya, with the method capable of going back 1.3 mya, better
>than mtDNA (200-400 kya); some pseudogenes are common to animals and man.
Not so. You misunderstand the point of the 400 kyr to 1.3 million year
range. It is a 95% confidence interval of the hemoglobin haplotype tree.
However, the fact that mtDNA coalesces at 200-400 kyr means that the
nuclear genome coalesces at 4-9 times that value, i.e. 800-3.6 million
years ago. And if we really want trouble, then consider the MHC complex. It
doesn't coalesce for tens of millions of years. This is our worst problem,
the one I can't solve.
"If we assume a mean population size of 10^5 individuals and a long-term
generation time of 15 years, the expected coalescence for neutral alleles
is 6 Myr, which is much less than the 30 Myr coalescence of the DRB1
alleles. Although the coalescence estimate has a large variance, it seems
that either our ancestral population was even larger than 10^5 or, as
assumed, balancing selection accounts for the long term persistence of the
MHC polymorphisms. The presence of balancing selection is supported by the
analysis of the DNA sequences of HLA alleles. In codons specifying amino
acids of the PBR, variation at the first and second positions is
significantly higher than at the third position, and this observation is
taken as evidence that positive selection acts on the first two positions.
Moreover, Hill et al. have shown that MHC polymorphism may increase
resistance to Plasmodium falciparum, the parasite responsible for malignant
malaria.
"Estimates of the magnitude of the selection coefficient, s, that
maintains the MHC polymorphisms vary from locus to locus, but range from
0.0007 to 0.019. It seems unlikely that the selection coefficients do not
allow for the long-term persistence of polymorphisms except in the presence
of large populations. For example, only 7 alleles can be maintained in a
population of N=1000, even with overdominant selection as unreasonably
large as 0.3." ~ Francisco J. Ayala, Ananias Escalante, Colm O'hUigin and
Jan Klein, "Molecular Genetics of Speciation and Human Origins," Proc.
Natl. Acad. Sci, USA, 91:pp6787-6794, July 1994, p. 6790.
"For example, 63 primate alleles are known of the DRB1 gene, 17 of them in
humans. As many as 14 DRB1 human alleles predate the origin of Homo
erectus, 9 alleles predate the divergence of the human and chimpanzee
lineages, and 7 alleles predate the divergence of the human and orangutan
lineages. Another instance is the occurrence of multiallelic polymorphisms
in the [beta]-globin family that yield at least 17 haplotypes, the
coalescence of which goes back to 450,000 years B.P. or earlier and would
be consistent with an effective population of 10,000 individuals through
that time span." ~ Francisco J. Ayala, Ananias Escalante, Colm O'hUigin and
Jan Klein, "Molecular Genetics of Speciation and Human Origins," Proc.
Natl. Acad. Sci, USA, 91:pp6787-6794, July 1994, p. 6791.
>Point (7): Some of the beings represented by these fossils may indeed have
>been descendants of Adam. But there ought not to be a problem with claiming
>that some of these beings, in spite of their activities, did not bear God's
>image.
There is. If I can't use a person's behavior to determine if he is bearing
the image of God, then exactly what do I use? How can I tell that YOU bear
the image of God? Does an atheist bear the image of God? How do I know.
Maybe the fact that he is an atheist is evidence that he doesn't possess
the image of God? Or does race come into play here? After all, since we
humans received our our image as a result of being descended from Adam, we
also received genetic inheritance from Adam. Thus, the image must be
related to our genetic inheritance. Because of this, if there are people
who look like us and act like us but are not human, then we can treat them
as we wish. Are blacks without the image? What about the Chinese or
American indians To me this opens a terrible terrible door. I know you do
not hold these views, but they are the implications of what you advocate here.
>
>Point (8): Let's be wary of claiming that DNA and other biological evidence
>proves human beings and other primates have common ancestry. We've insisted
>many times on this listserv that this is a universe in which everything
>"fits in." It is fine tuned. No wonder modern humans and some animals are
>close genetically. As for genetic "errors," we can call them errors only if
>we know the mind of God. In the past, many of us have decried the argument
>which says that God is in the gaps, that is, places we do not understand.
>Let's not make a similar mistake by postulating something concerning
>genetic "errors," which represent gaps in our genetic knowledge.
Pseudogenes do not constitute a 'gap' in our knowledge. We know exactly
what pseudogenes do--nothing. They don't have the control mechanism to make
a protein. Yet in other respects they are identical to the coding portions
of the working genes. And consider the MHC data I cited above.
>
>Point (9): Here the matter can go either way. Perhaps human language is
>80,000 years old. Or, it could be that non-human beings could speak. The
>ability to speak doesn't prove the speaker bears the image of God.
Do any of these non-human beings exist today? after all you say that they
interbred with the real humans, which is the reference to the nephilim.
The nephilim are mentioned after the flood and thus must live today. Who
are they?
also consider this recent work:
"Even at times of low sea level, when Sumatra, Java and
Bali were connected to mainland Southeast Asia, at least two
sea crossings were required to reach Flores. The first of
these deep-water barriers, between the islands of Bali and
Lombok, is about 25 km wide and constitutes a major
biogeographical boundary, the Wallace Line. Prior to human
intervention, only animals capable of crossing substantial
water barriers by swimming, flying or rafting on flotsam
were able to establish populations on Flores (e.g.
elephants, rats). In fact, the impoverished nature of the
fauna on the island in the Early and Middle Pleistocene
rules out the possibility of temporary landbridges from
continental Southeast Asia. The presence of hominids on
Flores in the Early Pleistocene therefore provides the
oldest inferred date for human maritime technology anywhere
in the world. Elsewhere, dates for such capabilities are
much more recent. These findings indicate that the
intelligence and technological capabilities of H. erectus
may have been seriously underestimated. An accumulating
body of evidence from elsewhere supports this conclusion
(e.g. Thieme 1997).
"The complex logistic organization needed for people to
build water-craft capable of transporting a biologically and
socially viable group across significant water barriers,
also implies that people had language. Previously the
organizational and linguistic capacity required for sea
voyaging was thought to be the prerogative of modern humans
and to have only appeared in the late Pleistocene. It now
seems that humans had this capacity 840,000 years ago." M.
J. Morwood et al, "Archaeological and Palaeontological
Research in Central Flores, East Indonesia: results of
Fieldwork 1997-1998," Antiquity, 73(1999):273-286, p.
285,286
>
>Point (10): To understand Cain's worry, we must go back to Adam's search
>for a "suitable helper" (Gen. 2:20). Adam did not find a suitable helper,
>although the fact of his looking around suggests there might have been some
>candidates. Perhaps Cain knew of these candidates and so was worried. There
>is no evidence he "married" one of them. Is there an objection to the idea
>that in fact he married his sister?
see above.
>
>The "sons of God" married the "daughters of men." It's been suggested that
>angelic beings married human beings. Rather, it seems that the "sons of
>God" were men who should have married the women who were "daughters of
>God." Although God told his covenant people not to marry unbelievers, they
>broke that law.
Nephilim alive today, are their descendants of them who don't bear the image?
Sorry, Russ, I will fight this with everything I can muster. The only way
to avoid the implications of this is to posit Adam way back in history. I
know Christians are loathe to do that, but it is the only way to avoid the
problems I see with the view you advocate and still match the data of
anthropology. If Adam lived before our genetic split into races, then we
are all descendants of Adam. Otherwise, we aren't.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 09 2000 - 22:13:15 EST