Dennis Jensen: A scientifically viable model for a first human couple?

I think this gets us to the most important disagreement we have going. If you cannot show that you have enough backing for your claim, I think we should see that the basic form of my model does work. The shift from instinctual moral actions and awareness to human moral awareness and spiritual awareness could, in fact, occur between two generations with the same genetic makeup. This is the point Wilcox makes for his model and it’s the same one George claims (gbrooks9, 11ja20), unless I’ve completely misread them both. (Wilcox’ model was presented in March 2019, “Updating Human Origins,” https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2019/PSCF3-19Wilcox.pdf; p.46.) George says, “I reject the idea of Adam and Eve being the first of anything … except the first to receive a set of moral educational experiences directly from God.” George, please correct me, but wouldn’t you say that with this “moral educational” instruction A&E attained they came to possess the kind of normal human moral awareness we now have? Would you also say that they then attained a spiritual awareness which was lacking previously? If these claims are compatible with our understanding of genetics, this change can occur in two individuals who have the same genome as their parents and wider species. So, John, can you show that moral and spiritual awareness is such a “very big new characteristic” that it requires not only one mutation but many, as you’ve said? I wouldn’t deny that some moral instruction is likely involved, maybe even needed, I would simply add that it appears that some genetic change is also likely present to trigger the change. Also, the change from non-human to human does not involve a single mutation but a single mutation of a regulatory gene which changes a number of genes.

Sorry, but your model is not the default conclusion.

If so, you’re not talking about genetic transmission at all, and you have changed your model to something quite different from the one I criticized. This is known in the trade as “moving the goalposts”.

No, because you have changed the scenario from gaining the capacity for awareness to being taught that awareness, which are quite different things.

I don’t think that scenario is credible; it shows a lack of understanding of gene regulation. This scenario (a return to your previous one) would require careful divine intervention to set up the developmental network that could be flipped by a single switch. That does’t mean it isn’t true, but it requires many more miracles than you credit overtly.

@gbrooks9 I would love to hear about this set of moral educational experiences that A&E got directly from God. Because God seems to all for slavery, genocide, intolerance, inequality, racism, misogyny, blood sacrifice, and many other things that a moral person of the 21st century would find appalling.

1 Like

@Patrick

This education is allegorized as God’s instructions NOT to eat from the Tree of Good and Evil.

@DJensen (@John_Harshman)

You describe my position well. The differences introduced by Adam and Eve are psychological.

Maybe the analogy would be Einstein telling his parents that gravity and acceleration both trigger a slowing of time. This alters the awareness of all those who hear it.

So there is no need at all for genealogical Adam, just missionary Adam.

No he doesn’t. You’re reading into the Bible what you want to see. Patrick. I have a book out entitled Human Suffering and the Evil of Religion that looks at most of your inculpations. But of course, this isn’t the proper forum to discuss these.

Not to eat from the tree of good and evil. What kind of tree was that? A biological fruit tree that evolved containing fruit that only humans who eat of this tree can get knowledge of God’s defined good and evil? Wow, sounds really fanciful to think that God coded his moral instructions to A&E in the fruit of a magical tree.

And I have plenty of books that show how awful the bible is .

1 Like

Oh, except for the “blood sacrifice.” But if you find that objectionable, do you also find the meat industry morally reprehensible? They kill animals every day. How are the two different? And what you call “genocide” was basically God’s judgment on a wicked world. There’s more to it than just that, but that’s the core of it.

1 Like

The meat industry produces food. Blood sacrifice doesn’t.

How can you possibly not spot this instantly???

2 Likes

“And I have plenty of books that show how awful the bible is .”

Of course you do. But the arguments all turn out to be pretty empty when you look at them.

1 Like

“The meat industry produces food. Blood sacrifice doesn’t.
How can you possibly not spot this instantly???”

Blood sacrifice provided food as well. But even if it didn’t, what difference would it make? In both we are killing animals for a perceived need. You would need to show that there was no need for animal sacrifice. (And for many parts of the world there is no need for a meat industry. We’d use the land much more efficiently cultivating it rather than keeping livestock.)

1 Like

@patrick stay on topic.

agreed :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like

It would make the difference between providing food and not providing food.

Blood sacrifice of humans didn’t usually provide food.

No, you would need to show that there is a need for animal sacrifice.

That’ll be difficult. I’ve never sacrificed an animal in my life, nor do I know anyone else who has. I haven’t seen any negative side-effects.

1 Like

J (Jensen): If you cannot show that you have enough backing for your claim [“that moral and spiritual awareness is a very big new characteristic which could not plausibly result from a single mutation”], I think we should see that the basic form of my model does work.

H (Harshman): Sorry, but your model is not the default conclusion.

J: No, but it is one of maybe several which possibly could work. All I want to show is that it cannot be shown to be impossible or unlikely and as such is an open option. You need to show it does not work. Until you do, it should be taken as an open option.

………………….

H: you’re not talking about genetic transmission at all, and you have changed your model to something quite different from the one I criticized. This is known in the trade as “moving the goalposts”.

J: No, I’m bringing up a model which tries to bring about moral and spiritual awareness with no genetic changes at all simply to point out that the change does not require the enormous genetic alteration you demand. Later in my post I point out how this applies to my model.

…………………

H: you have changed the scenario from gaining the capacity for awareness to being taught that awareness, which are quite different things.

J: It sounds like you are saying that (under David’s and George’s models) those being taught moral and spiritual awareness already have the capacity for this awareness but it takes a special inculturation or teaching to actualize that awareness. But likewise I could say that the first human’s non-human parents and wider species also had the capacity for this awareness but that it could not be actualized without an added genetic impetus, however small that input might have been.

Yes. That’s a necessary conclusion from the models.

You could indeed say that, but it would make no sense. Still, it has the advantage of making your model so vague as to be difficult to pin down enough to argue against.

Why do you think that?

1 Like

Because it’s incoherent. If you have the capacity for something it doesn’t take a mutation to “actualize” it. You seem not to know what “capacity” means. And, again, if you think a single mutation can produce a complex feature, apparently by activating genes that had been long dormant, you don’t understand how that works either.