Glenn and other ASAers:
I make a few comments below.
On Wednesday, February 09, 2000 3:19 PM, Glenn Morton wrote
> 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.
My family's experiences in the South were similar to yours. But I come to a
different conclusion. A candidate for Governor of our state said in
campaign speeches to racist crowds that all you had to do was "look at
'them'" and you'd be sure they were not human. He was applying just the
test I claim should not be applied: don't decide on humanity using
appearances. His "them" were people who bore God's image because they were
Adam's descendants--and they therefore were human. On the "intellectual"
level, the university newspaper cited Anthropologist Carlton Coon to prove
that blacks are 200,000 years behind whites in their evolution. (Because of
our activities in the civil rights movement, we were shunned, received
anonymous phone calls, and were figuratively but not literally chased out
of the state.)
> >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.
I am not able to go into details concerning your last paragraph. But I have
a feeling that here too you are deciding humanity on physical grounds.
> "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?
The difference between a Christian and an atheist is Christ restores the
broken image of the Christian but not the broken image of the atheist (Rom.
8:29).
> 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.
Oops. I'm not convinced your "Thus" is logical.
> 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.
Very likely if you do not understand me, it is my fault. Without doubt, you
and I would agree 100% were we to decide on which contemporary beings are
human. Why? Surely not on looks. Because we'd be convinced they are
descended from Adam.
> >
> >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?
Concerning contemporary beings: I wonder if we do not see faint glimmerings
of the unusual abilities which once existed among non-humans in some an
imals of the present day.
> 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
Glenn, I don't necessarily disagree with your claim of a flood of six
million years ago. I followed that thread a few years ago with great
interest. So it may be that every being you claim to have been human was
actually human. What I disagree with is the method of decdiing that point.
Russ
Russell Maatman
e-mail: rmaat@mtcnet.net
Home: 401 5th Avenue
Sioux Center, IA 51250
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 10 2000 - 16:15:35 EST