I’ve answered some of these question already. I’ll repeat an answer to the first one shortly in order to try to focus on my central question. My best guess as to when they lived is 100 to 130 kya. I’ve mentioned that I’m not opposed to a much earlier date even before the separation of the human line from the Neanderthal-Denisovan line. I won’t repeat my reasons—you’ll have to find my old post if you want that. So it would be questionable what the species is. I see there is some discussion on the internet which suggests possible ways redundant genes can be produced. Since we don’t know what the final gene allowing for humanness is, I wouldn’t know how duplicates of it were produced. Remember that it was I who had thrown out the question as to whether it might be possible that this could occur.
I would think that the most important issue for our discussion would be that in our normal understanding of how humans (call them H) evolved from their closest non-human relatives (call them N) there had to have been a point at which an individual had a moral and spiritual awareness which was missing previously; or at least one of the two. But then both may have occurred together and, if so, this is the point at which one became H. Even just enough change to reach that point at which one could respond to God and his commands and to others morally may have been enough to reach humanness. I’m suggesting that this point was reached when a final gene mutation occurred which pushed the individual into the capacity to have this awareness. With that capacity and a self-revelation from God of God’s existence came humanness.
Of course the transition could have been wider. Possibly there was a more drastic change in which the individual had a full world awareness not possessed by his predecessors. N may have been sentient but not self-conscious. They could have behaved like H but more out of instinct. Because lack of language would be so great a difference in N, it does appear less likely to me that they would have interbred unless both had language. Possibly N had a simpler use of language. We may speculate about some of the other characteristics which might separate H from N. So many of these (abstract thinking, theory of mind, and maybe others), though I think they likely are not present in any non-humans, actually might be in some, though certainly none existing today. (If you want to argue that some of these are present or can be produced in some animals living today, I would just say that some may be present in rudimentary form but not to the extant that forms the mental world of a human.) The crucial characteristics are moral and spiritual awareness. We have a moral and spiritual awareness and responsibility animals do not have.
In any case there were more likely significant genetic differences between H and N if the phenotypical and behavioral differences were more striking. I think the change would have required a genetic buildup of non-functional DNA, or some of it may have had other functions, which was primed to allow these new characteristics once a particular new mutation occurred to trigger the change. There is even the possibility that more than one, possibly a number of mutations occurred in one individual to trigger the change to humanness. This of course, like the genetic buildup, would have required some divine intervention.
But let’s go back to the previous scenario, the possibility that H and N are so closely alike that only a certain spiritual and moral awareness distinguishes them. Some human creation models would say that once one has the capacity to have this awareness, it takes a kind of teaching or inculturation to actualize it. I’m not sure this is necessary, at least for the basic moral awareness. It seems that with that capacity one may have the moral awareness naturally. One could simply be aware that other persons are like oneself; that they feel pain as one does; that there are some sensations or states one would not like to endure, like pain; and that one “ought” to refrain from doing to them as one would not want done to oneself, refrain from causing such sensations or states to occur to them. Spiritual awareness would require some kind of sense that God exist. This would be a sense that a person exists who is not a member of any of the known living beings of the known physical world. But there would also have to be the moral sense that this being deserves to be obeyed and loved. In the model I offer, this would occur with a self-revelation from God. Under a non-theistic world view this awareness might come later and not necessarily occur to the first humans. Secular evolutionists often offer some natural process, usually involving some feature(s) in the environment, which they think might have produced this religious awareness in early humans. However, a secular model does not in principle preclude the possibility that the first human had this innate sense of God’s existence and a moral obligation to God, even though the non-theist might claim the sense to be delusional.
Let me repeat the most important point I would hope to make. It is possible that following a normal evolutionary understanding of the origin of humans that we can come up with a first human and then a first human couple from whom all other humans originated.
There had to have been a point at which an individual had a moral awareness which was missing previously. There also had to have been a point at which an individual had a spiritual awareness which was missing previously. Both may have occurred together and if so this was the point at which one became H. Even just enough change to reach that point at which one could respond to God and his commands and to others morally could have been enough to reach humanness. Some revelation from God occurred in the theistic model while at the same time God used normal evolutionary processes to produce the first human.
I’m suggesting that one had reached this point, attaining spiritual and moral awareness and responsibility, when a final gene mutation occurred which pushed the individual into the capacity to have this awareness. This is the issue I would most like to see discussed and critiqued. What difficulty does anyone see with this possibility scientifically?
Not necessarily. It would mean that all ways that actually happened would have to result in a dominant lethal. Depending on population size and the duration of the interval you’re talking about, it might be that some very low frequency mutations could never have happened.
More importantly, I have no idea where you’re going with this. Why are we talking about this bizarre subject?
Not if the date is 100-130ka. That species would be Homo sapiens both before and after the appearance of “true humans”. If you go back 500ka or earlier, the species would not be H. sapiens, before or after, but we don’t have a name for that ancestor. The point is that no sudden, noticeable change happened at either of those times.
We do know, however, that there is no such “final gene”. It just makes no genetic sense.
Are you saying that “backup genes” are the same as duplicated genes? If so, we totally know how duplicated genes are produced. But they aren’t backups. They either diverge in function or become pseudogenes and disappear.
That what could occur? If you have thrown out this question, I don’t recognize it because neither you nor I knows what you’re talking about.
You’re assuming that this awareness is either present or absent. What if it’s all a continuum? Certainly the evidence is that moral awareness of a sort is present in our living relatives. Nor do I see either of these things as meaningful definitions of “humanness”.
So it’s a continuum; we can’t point to a specific moment at which “non-human” becomes “human”.
If you actually look at the development of religion, the earlier ones turn out to be polytheistic or animist, so you shouldn’t be talking about “God” but about “gods”. Monotheism is a comparatively late development. How does that fit into your scheme?
Not unless you completely redefine what “human” and “from whom all others originated” mean.
It’s rather vague to have any sort of entailments scientifically, but here’s one problem: it assumes that there is a sharp division between attaining and lacking these qualities, yet the evidence shows that there is fairly continuous variation. Further, your genetic speculations are all over the place, and none of them makes sense or is compatible with any data.
Hello Dennis. Welcome.
Because there are some serious human diseases caused by mutations of a single gene, there is a public perception that human characteristics are due to the Mendelian expression of a single gene, but that is more the exception than the rule. Even basic features, such as eye color, are due to a couple of dozen genes of various influence, and there are hundreds of genes which have some impact on height.
Are ‘designer babies’ possible? Researchers say No
The link I have attached references a study which concludes that the matrix of genes and environmental considerations is far too vast to allow for any imminent genetic manipulation to achieve any discernible results, even if there were no moral qualms about the procedure. You can forget about choosing your child’s hair color or appearance, except perhaps by the old fashioned way. How all this relates to your proposal is that it would be extraordinarily arbitrary to designate any given single, or limited number, of gene mutation as the one or few which pushed it over the line, for surely the traits which make and distinguish us as human must be greater than a trivial variation between, say, the hundreds of genes which simply influence the differences in sibling height. As you can see, in genetics things can get very complicated very fast.
I think I’ve made a couple of mistakes and I don’t see why this did not dawn on me. First, I’ve been claiming, or at least acquiescing to the claim, that a single gene produced humanness. Secondly, I’ve been trying to see if there are ways this gene could never be mutated, as if its loss could produce one who is obviously non-human. So our discussion of things like backup genes to prevent the loss of the “humanness gene” are simply and completely unnecessary. (Incidentally, John [Harshman], I think I was mistaken when I assumed some redundant genes would be backup genes. I looked at the article too quickly. However, are there not known to be backup genes which provide protection for important genes?)
As to the first error, it is not a particular gene which produced humanness, it is rather that there is a last gene mutation of a large number and that large number all together produces the unique human characteristics. This seems to me to be the normal evolutionary view of the origin of humans. My claim is that to reach the most basic characteristics of humanness, which I think are at least spiritual and moral awareness and responsibility, one must eventually have one last mutation of the sequence of mutations. More than one mutation in an individual that produces a final product, in this case humanness, is far less likely than a single mutation. So I would look for a final single mutation in an individual who has all of the others.
As for the second error, it is entirely possible that certain mutations could put one in a prehuman state. This could be the loss of any of a number of genes and their functions which would remove normal human characteristics. This does not necessarily make one less than a normal human. I’ll explain this in the long discussion I’ve been holding off posting. I’m going to wait maybe another day to post it since posting another long discussion will distract from what I have to say here. And it is vitally important that my comments here are seen and understood.
Coming late to this discussion, but isn’t this a very narrow gene-centric view of what makes us human? What about the role of the environment, specifically the influence of other members of our species? Is there no room here for the growth of societal norms and values over time, passed on and augmented from one generation to the next?
As someone who has kids, and has been a kid myself (as far as I can remember), I don’t think humans are born with responsibility. They have to learn it, and they learn in from other people - their parents, siblings, teachers, friends and so on. I can’t imagine that this process could be replaced by a gene.
Moral awareness too. Young children may have a basic sense of right and wrong, but that needs a lot of fostering and teaching before they can, over time, function in society. Some never really learn, unfortunately.
Some of these things can be seen in animals too, although undoubtedly at a more basic level.
The biochemical differences between humans and chimps could be quite large if you consider alternative splicing and gene expression. There is a paper out of university of Toronto that shows the chimp splicing activity is only 50% similar to humans and this divergence is that largest among 10 or so vertebrates examined.
Splicing is a technique the cell uses prior to the translation process that allows a single gene to take on several different forms and generate multiple protein types. Here is the paper abstract unfortunately the body is paywalled.
The Evolutionary Landscape of Alternative Splicing in Vertebrate Species
See all authors and affiliations
Science 21 Dec 2012:
Vol. 338, Issue 6114, pp. 1587-1593
DOI: 10.1126/science.1230612
Incest & Bestiality
John is referring to my proposal that the first humans interbred with non-humans. I also want to say more about the possibility that A&E were father and daughter, a notion which was offered in the essay but which I have not commented on for some time.
My first response should be that I find it hard to think that a scientific account of human origins should be influence by what we think “should be” the case. Whether we find something “icky” or disgusting does not affect what actually is. This is usually obvious to secular scientists. Nature is filled with what we take to be morally disgusting behavior: infanticide, rape, cannibalism, incest, etc. Even higher animals will sometimes exercise the most extreme cruelty. Theists may think that a morally good God would control the creation process or at least allow creation to proceed with certain moral constraints. This obviously does not occur in the animal world but we might expect it to occur with the creation of humans. (Given theism, this shows us that God deals with animals differently than he does with humans. Animals are not held accountable morally and likely do not experience suffering to the same degree as humans do.) Nevertheless, if a secular biologist thinks there is no problem with an early human (once one might be fairly sure this is a human) mating with one who is not quite human (or not quite as human), it would seem odd if they object to a theistic model which says the first humans interbred with their closest non-human predecessors.
The second thing that strikes me about this objection (and I’m sorry but I just can’t get over this impression) is that it is very subjective. Swamidass thinks this “bestiality” is morally reprehensible as apparently Harshman and others do. Swamidass overcomes the problem by having humans, the descendants of Adam and Eve (I’ll call them H2), interbreed with another human population which is distinct from H2 (call them H1). (H1 came into being through normal evolutionary processes.) I don’t see the need for this approach since it seems to me that it involves an unnecessary complication (creating two different kinds of humans) when a simpler model would do as well. Swamidass may have other reasons for rejecting my model but I think the stigma of bestiality is one of his more important reasons for doing so. (Would you say it’s your biggest reason, Josh?)
But why do I find this objection subjective? I just have difficulty seeing that interbreeding with others of one’s own species should ever be considered bestiality. Are we applying moral notions and intuitions to a time and situation in which they do not apply? I think so. What one finds “icky” and disgusting about bestiality today has been generated in our psyches through our evolutionary history because of the social and physical harm which results. (For the theistic evolutionist, this would likely be a divinely directed or ordained evolutionary history.) That does not mean that they are not morally wrong given our normal social and biological context. (By biological context I refer to the pathological harm that may result from behavior like bestiality, incest, etc.) Yet my question remains, Can any activity honestly be considered morally wrong if the social and biological context which otherwise makes it wrong is missing? I don’t think so. We may still have a moral revulsion at some behavior, yet that emotional response is just a vestige of our evolutionary history. Many people still experience a very strong moral aversion to the thought of interracial marriage. If you’ve seen the very powerful movie Loving , some of the dialogue suggests some of the deeply felt moral loathing some people feel (even today) at interracial marriage.
In my original essay I suggested that Eve could have been Adam’s daughter and later wife. I said that the absence of the social context which today would make this behavior morally wrong was lacking and thus we cannot say that it was morally wrong for that reason. I also said that given divine intervention, no genetic harm would occur either. So we cannot say that this was morally wrong because of genetic reasons. After Harshman expressed disgust at this idea, I didn’t bring it up again simply so that we could focus on the crucial features of my model. Parent-child incest for the first couple is not a crucial feature of my model. It can work just as well without it, though, as I said in the essay, I think the idea of Eve being Adam’s daughter seems to fit some features of the Genesis narrative better than if it did not occur. So I want to come back to my earlier claim that absent the social and pathological context which normally makes parent-child incest morally wrong, A&E’s unique social situation as father and daughter and husband and wife cannot be said to be morally wrong. Eve did not grow up aware of Adam as her father and Eve’s non-human mother was unaware of any social disruption whatsoever. There was otherwise no human social context for A&E to violate since these two were the only humans in existence.
I’m sure Harshman and others will again pour out his disgust and loathing at my suggestions, both the suggestion that A&E could be father and daughter and that their children would for many generations interbreed with non-humans of their species. But if he, or anyone else, cannot give me objective reasons to see such behavior as morally wrong, I feel that I will have to regard his objections as just as empty and delusional as the backwoods sheriff’s objections to interracial marriage in Loving .
Jonathan Burke said that the incest problem in one variation of my model should bother me and then suggested that I “please read about the Westermarck Effect.” The Westermarck Effect certainly is a fascinating hypothesis and there is some good evidence that it is true, as his link indicates. But it is totally irrelevant to our discussion. What keeps human incest in check says nothing about the good or evil or harm of incest.
Let me put it another way especially for the non-theists in this forum. Popular atheist thinkers Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Matt Dillahunty had a panel discussion in which they all pretty clearly agreed with a consequentialist view of ethics (Reddit - Dive into anything). And I think their views reflect the views of the more intellectual atheists as well. Now I don’t agree with all of their ethical claims, like Dawkins’ claim that a person has a right to kill their three year old if they think he or she is suffering, but I do have to agree with the core of their consequentialism. They agreed that no act is morally wrong if no one is harmed socially, physically, or psychologically; for example an incestuous relationship in which the couple is sterile. Issues arise if others are harmed and this must be weighed against the desires and well being of the couple. I would accept a basic form of consequentialist ethics but would add to it an obligation to obey the commands of God (one who by definition is good and deserves to be obeyed) if one feels persuaded that such a God exists and has spoken. In the discussion, Harris commented that some things are “wrong for everyone.” But he also mentioned “a thought experiment psychologist Jonathan Haidt has used to great effect to produce a phenomenon he calls moral dumbfounding. . . . He will produce an example like [the incest example they had discussed] and he’ll ask people whether it is right or wrong and they will [express] a very strong disgust based sense that it’s wrong. But then when [asked] to give a rationale for why it’s wrong they will basically come up with this very loralye [groundless] opinion.” Psychologist Paul Bloom said, “Disgust gets it right about as often as a coin toss.”
(The following comment is especially for you, Patrick.) I find it very revealing that sometimes knowledgable atheists and skeptics will admit the soundness of this kind of consequentialist ethic and then they will turn around and express moral indignation at the incest allowed by God in the Bible. (Even here however, we should notice that very few cases of incest are not condemned in the Bible.) If no social, psychological, or physical harm will come of it, the atheist has no good reason to condemn it. And for theists, if it causes no such harm and if we have no good reason to believe that God has forbidden it, even for only a given time in history, then neither can they say it is morally wrong at that time. But likewise, I would say that the same can be said for the incest and claimed “bestiality” found in my model.
This brings me to a more practical question for the members of this forum. Assuming that my model can be corrected of all of the scientific errors you think you see in it, do you think that by offering it to a wider number of Christian readers that the ideas of interbreeding with non-human primates of one’s species would so close their minds that they would not even consider it? What would secular readers think of it? I believe Swamidass has already expressed his opinion that it wouldn’t be worth even trying (am I right, Josh?) and I suspect Harshman would say the same. But what does everyone else think?
What if I also suggested the idea of A&E being father and daughter? Do you think this would repulse readers even more or not as much as the idea of human/non-human interbreeding? I’m enough of an idealist to think that this is a very likely scenario given the Genesis narrative and to accept it as a very real possibility, but I’m also enough of a pragmatist that I wouldn’t want to offer my model along with the incest scenario (even if offered as optional to the model) if most people would completely reject the model once they see the incest scenario.
No. Not sure what you think “backup genes” would mean. Would it be something like a spare tire, only used if one of the main tires gets a leak?
Yeah, as many have pointed out, this makes no sense. No, that is not the normal evolution view. The normal view is that the evolving human lineage has acumulated all manner of changes from whatever ancestral population you think counts as non-human, and there is no point along that lineage you can designate as the dividing line between human and non-human. There might be a last mutation, but that wouldn’t be like flipping a switch, just another addition to the gradual change.
A commonly used analogy is language. Who was the first speaker of French, born from Latin-speaking parents? Of course there was none, just a gradually changing language with a continuum between classical Latin and modern French.
I doubt it. Of course the ideas of “human” and “prehuman” are just too poorly defined to know what you mean by this.
Please don’t post long discussions. Verbosity is the soul of boring.
True. Then again, if God is involved, there’s an argument against him using corrupt practices to achieve his ends. Nobody was intending to argue that your scenario was unlikely because it’s reprehensible; we were just surprised that you didn’t find it so. It also seems that the icky parts (both incest and bestiality) have no reason for being, which suggests there may be some gross misunderstanding of biology behind them.
Why? Are you equating a rib with spermatozoa? Seems a real stretch. Is this supposed fit to Genesis the only reason? And are you truly equating father-daughter incest with interracial marriage? I hope you don’t have daughters, if so.
It would have to be more, since in order to get a daughter, in your scenario, Adam would have to breed with a non-human. Bad thing X would clearly not be as bad as bad thing X combined with bad thing Y. And of course the various children of Adam would have to find mates somewhere too, so the situation would continue for quite a while.
You have the additional problem, which you have never addressed, that whatever this humanness gene is would have to spread through the population for some reason. You have never articulated a reason.
I provided a list of essential characteristics for humanness elsewhere in the essay (and in this thread). So what are you doing, just selecting statements, pointing out that there is no definition of humanness in the selection, and then ignoring the definition found elsewhere in the essay?
I would also rephrase my statement to say that it is not the one mutation of a regulator gene necessarily but rather the mutation of one last gene or alteration of DNA or addition of new DNA in conjunction with the previously established DNA which altogether would produce the basic human characteristics and humanness. I would also rather say that the mutation formed a regulator gene which in turn deactivated some genes (if that is the proper terminology) and triggered a number of other genes.
It is completely relevant, because your model requires incest on a scale which is completely counter-intuitive to evidence such as the Westermarck Effect provides. I raised the Westermarck Effect not to comment on the morality of incest, but on its likelihood.
You just launched into a comprehensive moral defense of incest. Let that sink in.
Horrific. I am not sure if you understand how such arguments will be read as providing important insights into your personal character and morality.
I said “No evidence provided, no scientific explanation of the mechanisms involved, no scientific (or even theological), definition of “humanness””. Your handwaving definition of humanness was based on neither scientific evidence nor theological evidence. It was simply an empty claim.
Your entire case is simply you making things up, and then attempting to make post-hoc justifications. You are not gathering evidence first, then seeking to make sense of that evidence. You are starting with a pre-conceived idea, then attempting to make everything fit. This is how YECs and many other Christians approach biblical interpretation, but I don’t consider this remotely valid. I don’t see the point in wasting any time on proposals such as this.
Flag this if you wish, but are you out of your mind?!?
No, I said the incest problem does not bother me and I was clearly meaning morally. And I was referring to a unique situation. You said “It should bother you.” You were clearly commenting on the morality of incest. And you don’t even see that it is irrelevant so far as likelihood is concerned as well. If Eve is separated from Adam at her birth, possibly before, how can the Westermarck Effect or anything like it have any effect?
You’re not addressing what I wrote. I pointed out that I did not raise the Westermarck Effect as an argument against the morality of incest.
It can’t. But such a separation simply weakens your model even further, because it’s yet another in a patchwork of ad hoc arguments for which you have no evidence, and which you’re simply making up.
Is that what you think of Dawkins, Harris, and Dillahunty as well? Do you think most people who heard their discussion think that of them?
Possibly so, in which case it would only be God who knows at which point he considers one human and deals with them as morally responsible in a way differently than he does with the animals, if he deals with any animals in any kind of moral manner. But it could also be that no animals other than humans have ever had moral awareness. What we observe in some animals as moral behavior may be so instinctual as to be devoid of responsible actions. Also, spiritual awareness could be entirely present or absent. What I’m giving is of course a theological definition of humanness. We are concerned about how we distinguish humans and animals as far as the scripture would see them since the issue of contention is how God created humans according to a biblical view and whether that conflicts with our scientific knowledge of human origins.
The important point is that though you think there is a continuum and I think there is a clear distinction at a certain crucial point, there is no way for you to demonstrate that your view is more likely than mine. And again, even if you are correct that there is a continuum, that does not mean that there was not a specific point in the continuum at which God said, “Okay, this individual has enough moral awareness that I’m going to deal with him in a certain way, let him be aware of me, covenant with him, and hold him responsible for actions for which I would not hold his parents responsible.” It is also possible that to attain the capacity to possess this degree of moral awareness required some final gene mutation which pushed the individual slightly above the prior awareness capacity.
Claims like this are entirely speculative. You have no evidence at all that monotheism did not come first.
Thank you for the welcome. Are you suggesting that if there is a composite of genes which provides the unique characteristics of humanness I’ve suggested (or any others if I’m wrong, but assuming they are very few) that we might remove a number of them and those that are left would still maintain those characteristics? But if that is so, then as we gradually remove or deactivate (is that the right term?) genes, eventually we must reach a point at which to remove one gene will remove one of those humanness characteristics. It might even remove more than one if they are very similar or intrinsic to a specific kind of characteristic, like moral and spiritual awareness. Or it might diminish the degree to which a characteristic (say moral awareness) is present to the point that God would not consider the person with this deficiency human (or a normal human). My point is that it will ultimately take just one gene loss to remove the characteristics of normal humanness if those characteristics are few.
If the distinction between humans and any other animals involves several discrete characteristics and not just simple moral and spiritual awareness and responsibility, then we might imagine a number of different genes must be removed to remove all of these characteristics. In that case I think it may be necessary that a more miraculous human creation event occurred. There would need to be a guided buildup of DNA which had no function and eventually it would be turned on by a single or several genes in one individual to produce these several characteristics all at once. Or if the DNA buildup, or some of it, had other functions, those genes might have been coopted to the new functions.
I presume you reject all textual and archeological evidence as not relevant? Perhaps you envision a monotheistic, unreported Golden Age, after which the world fell into polytheism until Akhnaton revived the idea? Or what?
Yes, absolutely.
Very likely, though I really don’t care.