Rethinking Neanderthal Man

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I snipped the quote down to the relevant part, for ease of reading.



You seem to not understand the basic mechanics of evolution and adaptation.

Evolution via natural selection works on a population, not an individual. In your example of skin tone, each individual's skin tone starts at a basic level due to how much melanin they have. This is genetically coded and that is what will be passed on to the offspring, along with the ability for that skin tone to change based on the environment (some people tan more in the summer than others). If I were to move to a sunnier locale, my skin would darken but my genes would not change.

The reason that populations show different mean skin tones (Africa versus Scandinavia, for instance) is that in different environments, different skin tones will confer an advantage. In Africa, getting too much sun causes cancer and will generally kill off the lighter tones, leaving the dark tones to reproduce. If you took that same population and placed it in Scandinavia, a lack of sun causes Rickets and the darker tones would not survive to reproduce.

So it is the variation in a population that causes evolution, not the adaptation of the individual.

This also shows that rating a mutation as "good" or "bad" depends on the environment. A mutation causing albinism would be very profitable in a low-UV environment, while the exact same mutation would be very detrimental in a high-UV environment.

How does this explain white South Africans or white people who were born in other parts of the world where the indigenous population was black? You are saying that white people would turn black through adaptation to the tropical climate, but even when that happens, their children or born white. So, a caucasian remains a caucasian wherever he goes in the world, while a negroid remains a negriod. Try to explain why the African American remains black after many generations of living in the United States where the climate is not tropical. Even if a black person finds himself in prison and gets paler through a prison pallor, when he gets out and has children, they are born black. So, your adaptation theory breaks down. It is the same with Jewish men being circumcised ever since the time of Abraham, 2000 BC, and yet every Jewish male is born with a foreskin. Scientists did an experiment where they cut off the tails of 100 rats to see if the offspring were born with or without tails. Everytime they tried it, the offspring were born with tails.

Abinism is not an improvement in the person. An albino person's eyesight is much poorer than a normal person, so this shows that the mutation in this example is a degrading of the organism, not an improvement.

This is the same as trying to explain by an oriental with his distinctive features would adapt by relocating to a European country and over a period of time evolve into a person with European features. But this does not happen. There are many orientals living in European countries again for many generations, and their children, if they did not intermarry with Europeans, would remain oriental.

The only time a European has mutated into a person with oriental features is when a person is born mongoloid, but that is a mutation that has degraded the organism. You cannot say that a mongoloid person is part of a super-race of humans, more intelligent than the normal person.

You actually have no scientific proof for your theories, so they have to remain in the area of philosophical fantasy.

 

[denominator]

How does this explain white South Africans or white people who were born in other parts of the world where the indigenous population was black? You are saying that white people would turn black through adaptation to the tropical climate, but even when that happens, their children or born white. So, a caucasian remains a caucasian wherever he goes in the world, while a negroid remains a negriod. Try to explain why the African American remains black after many generations of living in the United States where the climate is not tropical. Even if a black person finds himself in prison and gets paler through a prison pallor, when he gets out and has children, they are born black. So, your adaptation theory breaks down.

I am not saying that "white people will turn black". I am saying that the population will gradually change from predominantly white to predominantly black over time (using your terminology). A fair skinned person will not give birth to a dark skinned person. There is a small range of variance, and over time the variance will be selected upon causing a gradual change in the population.

The reason African Americans in America are still dark skinned is due to multiple reasons. Primarily, there is no selection pressure on them. In America, a dark-skinned person is as likely to reproduce as a light-skinned person. With no variance in reproductive behaviours, there will be only a minor variance in the general phenotype of the generations.

The second is that there have simply not been many generations. On the timescale of the earth, less than 10 generations in miniscule and the 10th generation will still look very similar to the 1st. Here's Dawkins explaining generational differences perfectly, from The Greatest Show On Earth (2009):

Take a rabbit, any female rabbit (arbitrarily stick to females, for convenience: it makes no difference to the argument). Place her mother next to her. Now place the grandmother next to the mother and so on back in time, back, back, back through the megayears, a seemingly endless line of female rabbits, each one sandwiched between her daughter and her mother. We walk along the line of rabbits, backwards in time, examining them carefully like an inspecting general. As we pace the line, we’ll eventually notice that the ancient rabbits we are passing are just a little bit different from the modern rabbits we are used to. But the rate of change will be so slow that we shan’t notice the trend from generation to generation, just as we can’t see the motion of the hour hand on our watches–and just as we can’t see a child growing, we can only see later that she has become a teenager, and later still an adult. An additional reason why we don’t notice the change in rabbits from one generation to another is that, in any one century, the variation within the current population will normally be greater than the variation between mothers and daughters. So if we try to discern the movement of the ‘hour hand’ by comparing mothers with daughters, or indeed grandmothers with granddaughters, such slight differences we we may see will be swamped by the differences among the rabbits’ friends and relations gambolling in the meadows round about.

It is the same with Jewish men being circumcised ever since the time of Abraham, 2000 BC, and yet every Jewish male is born with a foreskin. Scientists did an experiment where they cut off the tails of 100 rats to see if the offspring were born with or without tails. Everytime they tried it, the offspring were born with tails.

It is not the same. Alterations to an individual that do not affect his or her genes will not be passed along to the following generation. If a child were born with no foreskin, and that child grew up and reproduced, he would likely produce a child that also had no foreskin (assuming that child was also male).

Abinism is not an improvement in the person. An albino person's eyesight is much poorer than a normal person, so this shows that the mutation in this example is a degrading of the organism, not an improvement.

In this environment, arguably yes. But in other environments, such as low light and low UV, albinos may actually be at an advantage.

This is the same as trying to explain by an oriental with his distinctive features would adapt by relocating to a European country and over a period of time evolve into a person with European features. But this does not happen. There are many orientals living in European countries again for many generations, and their children, if they did not intermarry with Europeans, would remain oriental.

The only time a European has mutated into a person with oriental features is when a person is born mongoloid, but that is a mutation that has degraded the organism. You cannot say that a mongoloid person is part of a super-race of humans, more intelligent than the normal person.

Again, you are attaching an end-goal to evolution, this one being that Oriental people look like Europeans. There are no selection pressures causing the facial features of these people to change, so there is no reason to assume they would change over time. And again, the number of generations is simply too low to see any noticeable change.

You actually have no scientific proof for your theories, so they have to remain in the area of philosophical fantasy.

I would suggest reading up on fruit fly evolution. There is plenty of evidence there. You may also want to check out human evolution and see how the Homo genus has changed over time.

 

[Calminian]

I am not saying that "white people will turn black". I am saying that the population will gradually change from predominantly white to predominantly black over time.....

Not without intermarrying with darker skinned people. Whites will only produce whites at this point and blacks only blacks. The information has been lost, and apart from being reintroduced, it will stay lost. Wolves had the information to produce poodles, but poodles don't have the info to produce wolves.

 

[denominator]

Not without intermarrying with darker skinned people. Whites will only produce whites at this point and blacks only blacks. The information has been lost, and apart from being reintroduced, it will stay lost. Wolves had the information to produce poodles, but poodles don't have the info to produce wolves.

This is simply not true. Recessive genes and random mutations will cause enough variation.

The reason wolves still exist and are not evolving into poodles now is because there is no selection pressure for it. It is the same reason poodles are not evolving into wolves (or other canids, for that matter).

If you were to devote your life (and likely that of your children/grandchildren for the next 10 generations or so) to breeding poodles back into wolves, it could be done. That would be artificial selection, the same process that produced the different breeds of dogs today.

 

[sfs]

How does this explain white South Africans or white people who were born in other parts of the world where the indigenous population was black? You are saying that white people would turn black through adaptation to the tropical climate, but even when that happens, their children or born white. So, a caucasian remains a caucasian wherever he goes in the world, while a negroid remains a negriod. Try to explain why the African American remains black after many generations of living in the United States where the climate is not tropical. Even if a black person finds himself in prison and gets paler through a prison pallor, when he gets out and has children, they are born black.

I already did explain it to you: the offspring remain the same pigmentation as their parents until one of them has a mutation that changes their pigmentation. That will probably take a long time -- a very long time if you're just looking at a handful of individuals. Much less if you're talking about an entire population.

 

[Calminian]

This is simply not true. Recessive genes and random mutations will cause enough variation.

Where has this happened that you can point to? Is there any observation data that blacks suddenly start having loads of white children and vice versa?

The reason wolves still exist and are not evolving into poodles now is because there is no selection pressure for it. It is the same reason poodles are not evolving into wolves (or other canids, for that matter).

So you really believe a couple of poodles as the only dogs left on earth could eventually produce a wolf or wolf like descendant? You have more faith that me.

 

[sfs]

Where has this happened that you can point to? Is there any observation data that blacks suddenly start having loads of white children and vice versa?

The like has certainly been seen in other animals, e.g. here.

ETA: and here.

 

[Calminian]

The like has certainly been seen in other animals, e.g. here.

ETA: and here.

With other animals like poodles that that have lost virtually all of the amazing attributes of their original ancestor? I highly doubt it.

Looking at this biblically, the same is true with man. Our lives spans are just a fraction of those of our original ancestors, and seem to be getting shorter. We're better now at avoiding infant deaths and childbirth deaths, and trauma deaths which brings our average up, but we're getting old and younger and younger ages, and we'll never get back the genetic information we lost in the Flood. Man seems to be devolving along with poodles.

 

[sfs]

With other animals like poodles that that have lost virtually all of the amazing attributes of their original ancestor? I highly doubt it.

I was addressing your comment about whites and blacks changing their color. Since these were new mutations, how much diversity was present in the parent population doesn't matter anyway.

Looking at this biblically, the same is true with man. Our lives spans are just a fraction of those of our original ancestors,

No, they're shorted than reported in certain ancient texts. There's zero physical evidence that humans ever had longer lifespans than they do today.

and seem to be getting shorter.

Evidence? In most developed countries, life expectancy (including life expectancy when already an adult) has only increased. The major exception is Russia.

We're better now at avoiding infant deaths and childbirth deaths, and trauma deaths which brings our average up, but we're getting old and younger and younger ages, and we'll never get back the genetic information we lost in the Flood. Man seems to be devolving along with poodles.

One thing that is abundantly clear from studying human genetics is that we have not lost large amounts of genetic diversity in an intense population bottleneck at any point since we've existed as a species. If you try to map the early chapters of Genesis onto any aspect of our genetics, it just doesn't work.

 

[ChetSinger]

If you were to devote your life (and likely that of your children/grandchildren for the next 10 generations or so) to breeding poodles back into wolves, it could be done. That would be artificial selection, the same process that produced the different breeds of dogs today.

Hello.

I don't think so, because the wolf-to-poodle process purposefully filtered out genetic information. By now, some of that original data is just gone.

 

[sfs]

Hello.

I don't think so, because the wolf-to-poodle process purposefully filtered out genetic information. By now, some of that original data is just gone.

[/quote]
I'm quite doubtful too. Most dog breeds are highly inbred and don't have a lot of genetic diversity to play with. That means you'd have to wait until new genetic diversity arose through mutation, and that will take quite a while.

 

[Calminian]

...No, they're shorted than reported in certain ancient texts. There's zero physical evidence that humans ever had longer lifespans than they do today.

Certain texts? That's all scripture is to you?

Regardless, there is zero physical evidence for all kinds of historical facts. But we do have very reliable historical evidence in the form of preserved corroborating writings.

Evidence? In most developed countries, life expectancy (including life expectancy when already an adult) has only increased. The major exception is Russia.

Yes because we're saving more lives from ending prematurely, particularly infants. But long lifespans haven't seen any increase. There are a lot of recent historical figures that lived quite long lives even before our great advancements in medicine. John Q. Adam's lived 81 years, outliving virtually all men today, and there's numerous other examples.. Moses of course (of course you won't believe this because it's biblical) lived 120 years. Abraham 175.

Seem's we're devolving rapidly.

One thing that is abundantly clear from studying human genetics is that we have not lost large amounts of genetic diversity in an intense population bottleneck at any point since we've existed as a species. If you try to map the early chapters of Genesis onto any aspect of our genetics, it just doesn't work.

Feel free to support this, but I'm hearing some good arguments to the contrary. I think we're a far cry from the brilliant engineers that built the pyramids and other megaliths. We just now have the advantage of larger populations and record keeping to build on.

 

[denominator]

Yes because we're saving more lives from ending prematurely, particularly infants. But long lifespans haven't seen any increase. There are a lot of recent historical figures that lived quite long lives even before our great advancements in medicine. John Q. Adam's lived 81 years, outliving virtually all men today, and there's numerous other examples.. Moses of course (of course you won't believe this because it's biblical) lived 120 years. Abraham 175.

This is false. I can't post the link due to my low post count, but check out a website called "World Life Expectancy" (I'm sure you can probably figure out the URL, or Google it). There is even a chart showing how life expectancy has risen, globally, since 1960 until today.

You have named one man as evidence against a global population. Most research I've done for that time period comes up with a life expectancy for the 18th century at 35-50 years. This is considerably lower than the current life expectancy of nearly 70 years.

I can't accept the data provided in the Bible because it is not peer reviewed and entirely anecdotal.

 

[sfs]

This is false. I can't post the link due to my low post count, but check out a website called "World Life Expectancy" (I'm sure you can probably figure out the URL, or Google it). There is even a chart showing how life expectancy has risen, globally, since 1960 until today.

Here is another site that give U.S. life expectancy over the years for different ages, showing that the overall improvement is not just the result of improved infant survival; life expectancy at all ages has improved.

 

[sfs]

Certain texts? That's all scripture is to you?

That's not all it is to me, but one thing it is not is a reliable source of scientific information -- not for me, and as far as I can tell, not for anyone else either.

But even if you do think that the Bible is inerrant in historical and scientific matters, that still doesn't mean you can read it naively; the key word in my description was certain ancient texts. What would the ages given in Genesis have meant to an ancient author or audience? As it happens, for reasons unrelated to this thread I asked John Walton last night if he thought Methuselah had been a real man, and if so how long he lived. (Walton is professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College, an expert on Biblical interpretation and does indeed think the Bible is accurate historically, at least when it is talking about history.) He responded that of course Methuselah was a real person, and that he didn't know how long he lived, since listed ages probably had other cultural significance than simple elapsed time.

So no, I don't think the life spans described in Genesis tell us how long people used to live.

Regardless, there is zero physical evidence for all kinds of historical facts. But we do have very reliable historical evidence in the form of preserved corroborating writings.

Sometimes writings are reliable historical evidence and sometimes they're not.

Feel free to support this, but I'm hearing some good arguments to the contrary. I think we're a far cry from the brilliant engineers that built the pyramids and other megaliths. We just now have the advantage of larger populations and record keeping to build on.

What good arguments have you heard? And do you really think discovering quantum mechanics and piloting remote spacecraft to Saturn and beyond took less intelligence than constructing a big pile of rock? (A well designed and executed pile, to be sure, but it's still just a pile of rock.)

As for support for the claim that we have not had a small population at any point in our recent history . . . There are three main genetic methods for estimating past population size; two are completely independent of one another, and the third is largely independent. All involve studying genetic variation in the population. One looks at the number of variants at different places in the genome, and can be applied to a single person's two copies of the genome. It was pioneered by Li and Durbin in this paper. A second method looks at variants and sees how common they are in the population; the shape of the spectrum reflects changes in population size in the past. Lots of people have done work using this approach, but probably the most thorough job has been by Carlos Bustamante's group, as in this paper. The third method is more difficult and less precise, but is still interesting. It looks at the correlations in variants that are near one another in the genome, as in this paper.

All of these methods agree on the rough size of the ancestral population, and all rule out the possibility that there was a recent bottleneck down to a few individuals. Using the same methods, it is very easy to see places where there were small populations: moderately small when modern humans left Africa, for example, and very small when Finland or Iceland was settled (the latter of which we also have good historical evidence for). So we have several independent lines of evidence that come to the same conclusion, and that have been tested against known population histories.

 

[Calminian]

That's not all it is to me, but one thing it is not is a reliable source of scientific information -- not for me, and as far as I can tell, not for anyone else either.

In other words you don't believe it, so you reduced it to nice little stories that can be interpreted anyway you wish.

But even if you do think that the Bible is inerrant in historical and scientific matters, that still doesn't mean you can read it naively;

Again more code for "I don't believe it, therefore I reinterpret it."

the key word in my description was certain ancient texts. What would the ages given in Genesis have meant to an ancient author or audience? As it happens, for reasons unrelated to this thread I asked John Walton last night if he thought Methuselah had been a real man, and if so how long he lived. (Walton is professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College, an expert on Biblical interpretation and does indeed think the Bible is accurate historically, at least when it is talking about history.) He responded that of course Methuselah was a real person, and that he didn't know how long he lived, since listed ages probably had other cultural significance than simple elapsed time.

Which simply shows that unbelief is common to all levels of academia. There are some very sophisticated individuals that don't believe Jesus even existed. Even people with degrees believe that. You'll find all kinds of people with all kinds of qualifications who believe all kinds of things. There are some very educated people that believe Elvis is still alive!

It's all antidotal and meaningless to the debate. You can cite your experts if that helps your conscience, but I'll just call it like I see it. You're simply struggling with unbelief. I'm not going to sugarcoat it.

What good arguments have you heard? And do you really think discovering quantum mechanics and piloting remote spacecraft to Saturn and beyond took less intelligence than constructing a big pile of rock? (A well designed and executed pile, to be sure, but it's still just a pile of rock.)

Considering the lack of technology that existed back then, yes. Especially when I look at the philosophical leaps made from modern discoveries. Some of the most brilliant men in the world believe the universe leapt into existence for no reason uncaused. Scientists are often the most inept philosophical/theological thinkings on earth. And yet we look to them, and often them alone to address deep philosophical issues like origins.

 

[Calminian]

This is false. I can't post the link due to my low post count, but check out a website called "World Life Expectancy" (I'm sure you can probably figure out the URL, or Google it). There is even a chart showing how life expectancy has risen, globally, since 1960 until today.

You have named one man as evidence against a global population. Most research I've done for that time period comes up with a life expectancy for the 18th century at 35-50 years. This is considerably lower than the current life expectancy of nearly 70 years.

I can't accept the data provided in the Bible because it is not peer reviewed and entirely anecdotal.

denominator, did you actually listen to the argument I made. I don't see you addressing it anywhere. You merely cited statistics I granted you and agreed with. I don't think you gasped the basic argument I made. If you are willing, please go back and read my post carefully.

Now you say you can't accept any data from the Bible. My question is, why? It's the most well preserved set of ancient documents in existence. Why would you completely dismiss it, a priori? Bias?

 

[denominator]

denominator, did you actually listen to the argument I made. I don't see you addressing it anywhere. You merely cited statistics I granted you and agreed with. I don't think you gasped the basic argument I made. If you are willing, please go back and read my post carefully.

I've read and re-read it a number of times. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but your point was that human lifespans are no longer now than they were in the past? If not, then I am truly unsure what point you are trying to make.

Now you say you can't accept any data from the Bible. My question is, why? It's the most well preserved set of ancient documents in existence. Why would you completely dismiss it, a priori? Bias?

I can't accept the data provided in the Bible because it is not peer reviewed and entirely anecdotal.

 

[ChetSinger]

Regarding human lifespan, this song was written about 3,000 years ago:

The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away. - Psalm 90

So back then they could expect to live to 70 or 80. That's about where we are today.

But they could expect to live to that age without any modern medicine. How many of our current 70- and 80-year-olds would've reached their age without modern medical care?

So I don't think our lives are getting longer by nature. Instead, they might even be getting a little shorter. But it's disguised because of our superior medical care.

 

[Calminian]

I've read and re-read it a number of times. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but your point was that human lifespans are no longer now than they were in the past? If not, then I am truly unsure what point you are trying to make.

Our average lifespan is longer today then a short time ago. The reason is because we have far less infant mortality and deaths of trauma. But when you take those away, there really is no difference between now and a few hundred years ago.

And I would seriously urge you to rethink the Bible. Have you looked into manuscript evidence? Have you checked out the dead sea scrolls. They are virtually identical to the Old Testament we have today. The jews are meticulous copiers, and ritualistically preserved their documents like no other scribes on earth. And you're not dealing with just one book. There are 39 books in the old testament all corroborating one another.

And I'm curious. Which ancient historical books do you find more reliable and well preserved than the Bible? Do you doubt all accounts of ancient history, or just the Biblical ones?