The pre-history of mankind
I’ve been reading Nicholas Wade’s 2005 book,
Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors, a fascinating study of the current and rapidly expanding knowledge about the pre-history of mankind, from the splitting off of what became the hominid line about five million years ago to the development of fully modern
Homo sapiens in Africa between 100,000 and 50,000 years ago; and from the departure of a tiny group of people from Africa 50,000 years up to the beginning of recorded history (the Dawn) 5,000 years ago. There is a lot of new and amazing information in the book, provided mainly by recent advances in genome studies which have made it possible to trace the branching out of mankind across the globe over the last 50,000 years.
For example, there is the window into the human past that has been opened by knowledge of the Y chromosome. Unlike other chromosomes, the Y chromosome, which makes a human individual a male and is present only in males, is not combined with its opposite chromosome at the time of fertilization. It is passed down from one generation of males to the next unchanged, except for biologically non-functional mutations that appear regularly on the chromosome and keep accumulating, serving as markers that geneticists can use to show the history and differentiation of mankind over tens of thousands of years. It’s staggering to learn of this, but all human males in the world outside Africa have in common a certain mutation in their Y chromosome, while only a few males in Africa have that mutation. Meaning that all of non-African humanity is descended from a single man (the Y chromosomal Adam) in whom that mutation in the Y chromosome occurred perhaps a few generations before the ancestral band, estimated at 150 individuals, crossed from Africa to the Near East and spread out across the world.
However, while Wade’s narrative is illuminating concerning the history of the human species, there are also in his book, given his orthodox Darwinism, a lot of what Ann Coulter in Godless with delicious and merciless irreverence calls “stories.” These consist of the invention out of whole cloth of various Darwinian scenarios purporting to explain how new species appeared out of old; namely, how hominids, as a result of random mutations and natural selection, began to walk fully upright; acquired external noses; shed their body hair; developed continually growing hair on the top of the head; invented language and so on. Wade continually engages in the rankest speculation to account for the various innovations in the human form and mentality that led to anatomically and behaviorally modern homo. His Darwinian explanation for the appearance of continually growing hair on the head takes the cake. And without the slightest sign of doubt or self-questioning, he acts as though these speculative stories have demonstrated the Darwinian origin of the human species by random genetic mutations and natural selection, when in reality all they have accomplished is to show how absurdly unlikely the Darwinian theory is.
Yet even when one disagrees with Wade, his book is terrific, as he sets forth the Darwinian view in a highly informative and engaging narrative against which the non-Darwinian reader can test his own views.
- end of initial entry -
Bill in Maryland writes:
You write: ” … while Wade’s narrative is illuminating concerning the history of the human species, there are also in his book, given his orthodox Darwinism, a lot of what Ann Coulter in Godless with delicious and merciless irreverence calls ‘stories.’ “
In fact the term was used much earlier by Stephen J. Gould, and appears most notably in the classic essay: “The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm” (1979), Gould, S.J. & Lewontin, R.C., e.g.:
“Often, evolutionists use consistency with natural selection as the sole criterion and consider their work done when they concoct a plausible story. But plausible stories can always be told. The key to historical research lies in devising criteria to identify proper explanations among the substantial set of plausible pathways to any modern result.”
You write: “Wade continually engages in the rankest speculation to account for the various innovations in the human form and mentality that led to anatomically and behaviorally modern homo. His Darwinian explanation for the appearance of continually growing hair on the head takes the cake. “
Wade appears to have come late to science; in his book he makes some obvious (though not serious) technical errors that indicate that he picked up what he knows from popularizations and conversations with practicing scientists. However, I warmly recommend the book, and hope that later editions keep up-to-date with what is learned about human pre-history.
“And without the slightest sign of doubt or self-questioning, he acts as though these speculative stories have demonstrated the Darwinian origin of the human species by random genetic mutations and natural selection, when in reality all they have accomplished is to show how absurdly unlikely the Darwinian theory is.”
Can’t argue with that; Wade’s account of the issue of human hair, for example, is hopelessly simplistic, and does not even take account of the facts about hair known to everybody. However, all stories are not equal. I have, I believe, a better one, which you can find here.
But there is the question you do not address: OK, Wade’s idea is ridiculous and you may not think much of mine—so how would a Creationist explain the peculiar facts about human hair? Or are God’s intentions incomprehensible, so that it is foolish to look for an explanation? And if that is true, how do we identify the subset of phenomena for which naturalistic explanations can be found?
LA replies:
See my July 2006 summary of my views on Darwinism and the linked blog entries. But here are the irreducible basics of the matter: (1) The Darwinian theory of the origin of species by random mutations and natural selection is both undemonstrated and inherently impossible. (2) The Darwinian theory having failed, the only alternative is that there is a creative intelligence at work in the evolution of new life forms on earth. But (3) how this happens, the instrumentalities by which it occurs, etc., WE DO NOT KNOW.
A. Zarkov writes:
You seem to think that evolution cannot explain speciation, and you leave out the primary mechanism: genetic drift. This mechanism differs from both natural selection and random mutation. Natural selection depends on an allele frequency becoming either more or less common over time as a result of its effects on adaptive and reproductive success. On the other hand, genetic drift is a purely statistical mechanism rather than a selective mechanism, and it does not depend on mutations. (You can have genetic variation without mutations of course.)
Genetic drift also depends strongly on population size—small populations are more subject to genetic drift than large ones. This is easy to prove mathematically, and it is not an assumption or a “story.” Genetic drift provides a basis for the founder effect, and is the proposed mechanism for speciation. Of course we don’t as yet have a complete, rigorous and validated theory for how new species form, but that doesn’t mean we won’t in the future. After all at one time atoms were only a theory and many scientists (like Mach) believed they were a convenient fiction. Then Einstein showed us that atoms really do exist when he published his paper on Brownian motion. Today we can image a single atom. We can get make individual atoms spell out “IBM.”
You say: “[Wade] acts as though these speculative stories have demonstrated the Darwinian origin of the human species by random genetic mutations and natural selection, when in reality all they have accomplished is to show how absurdly unlikely the Darwinian theory is.”
You have left out genetic drift as discussed above. Moreover, I don’t see how you can say a theory is “absurdly unlikely.” What is your alternative theory and how do you show it’s more likely than all the proposed theories of speciation? Then again, unlikely events are not impossible events. What’s the probability you would get the license plate number you have (assuming you own a car). Very small, but it happened. Remember impossible events have zero probability, but events with zero probability are not impossible.
I can show you why humans walk upright, based on physics, if you’re interested. And it’s not just a “story.”
LA replies:
I’ve been reading about genetic drift in Wade’s book, and all that genetic drift explains is how several alleles (variant types of a gene) in a small population can by a random process be reduced to one allele. Wade does not present this as a mechanism of speciation and it is impossible to see how even in theory it could be such. It explains how one particular trait, already present in a population, could become the dominant trait of that population. That doesn’t explain how you get from bacteria to brontosaurs and Labrador retrievers.
Mr. Zarkov also is operating under the fallacy that for the statement, “Darwinian theory of evolution is absurdly unlikely” to be true, I must have an alternative and more likely theory. How about a little human modesty in these matters? How about a genuine scientific attitude? A genuine scientific attitude would be to admit the difference between what we know and what we don’t know. The truth is that WE DON’T KNOW HOW NEW LIFE FORMS APPEARED ON EARTH.
Yes, we have a reasonable idea of how variations in existing life forms occur. If long-limbed slender dark-skinned people from the tropics move to extremely cold northern latitudes, it is entirely plausible that over time the natural selection of traits within that population will make its skin lighter to receive more vitamin D and its body thicker and limbs shorter to retain heat better. That is adaptation within an existing form. But the central lie of Darwinism is to extrapolate from natural selection leading to changes within a species, which is a fact or at least highly plausible and possible, to natural selection leading to entirely new organs and species, for which there is no evidence and which is inherently impossible.
DB writes:
You say you are anti-Darwin. But do you reject it on the grounds that there may be a better scientific explanation? Or on the grounds that it violates your religious precepts? Are you saying that no scientific explanation of evolution is possible? If you reject science explicitly then I am curious as to what your view is of the development of earth’s various species. Is it simply reliance on God? And if you reject science do you reject the products of science such as, say, electricity?
LA replies:
I reject it because there is no evidence for it and it is inherently impossible.
“Are you saying that no scientific explanation of evolution is possible?”
Well, it may be the scientific truth that no scientific explanation of evolution is possible. Has that possibility occurred to you? Is it a rejection of science to say that there are LIMITS to what science can discover? If that’s the case, then all the astronomers and cosmologists today reject science, because they have no scientific explanation—nor is there any prospect of their having one—of how the Big Bang occurred. They start with the Big Bang, the appearance of all matter out of some primordial something, but how that primordial something got there, they have no idea and don’t propose any theories. And they’re not embarrased by the fact that their theories come to a complete stop when it comes to the question of what existed the instant before the Big Bang. They act as though science is all-explanatory and the only possible truth and that anyone who says otherwise is a faith-based Nazi, even as they themselves tacitly acknowledge that science has limits.
When it comes to origins—the origin of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of consciousness—material science is helpless. The truly scientific attitude is to recognize this.
James W. writes:
While the multi-culturalist expend their energies re-inventing history for us, perhaps there is this window to discover our pre-history unmolested.
I’ve not read the book yet, but am familiar with the information you write of. There are several issues that jump out at me.
97 percent of our DNA is residing in our junk pile. We operate fully on three percent of it. Well, most of us do. Once in a long while a piece of the junk pile will resurface, like the vestigial sixth finger, or the condition where people are entirely covered with a thick layer of hair, or an extra ridge on the molars, and presumably innumerable others. It is a clear look into our past.
Combine this with the understanding provided by a geneticist specializing in dogs that, given time, he could breed any breed of dog into any other breed of dog by selecting the correct characteristics each generation.
To those who’s souls crave equality the fact that dogs are genetically identical will have comforting implications. But, the fact remains they also have distinct talents, deficits, likes, and dislikes. That is impossible for some of us to acknowledge.
LA replies:
I had not heard that 97 percent of our DNA is junk, but that would certainly explain how 99 percent of our genome is the same as that of chimps, and something like 80 percent is the same as that of fruitflies.
Hannon writes:
I have never understood how there could be such profound disagreement among thoughtful adults over the theory of evolution (I take this to be roughly synonymous with your “Darwinism”) and the disposition of religious or transcendent belief. The evolution idea is the result of empirical methodologies, the results of which are carried out—subjectively one might argue—to their logical conclusion, i.e., a reasonable accounting for the history, diversity and progress of life as we know it. [LA replies: Darwinists have NOT supplied a plausible accounting for the origin of species; they have supplied speculations and extrapolations which collapse when examined.] The details of these results will vary depending upon the phases or fads of science and the individual scientist. Belief in God and salvation and absolute Truth are based in faith or in direct religious experience and are not brought into our life experience through reasoning.
To suggest that Darwinism or evolution is necessarily atheistic sounds strange. There is no logic in this and this is something the Catholic Church recognizes, much to its credit. [The Catholic position on this is wrong. Evolution by random mutation and evolution as led by God’s purpose are mutually contradictory, as a single minute of thought will reveal.] It is true that the concept of natural selection is used by some to promote a view of Origin that seemingly eliminates any need for the consideration of a higher organizing principle or God. Why should we not see evolution as the underlying means to God’s handiwork in the physical plane? Is biology itself atheistic? The theory itself in no way indicates or dictates the absence of a divine presence. “Evolution is Creation over time” works for me…. [LA replies: This is the result of accepting the incoherent idea that evolution by random mutations are in conformity with evolution directed by a divine intelligence. If you just think about it, you’ll realize it’s contradictory.]
Can “new species” evolve from “old species”? This is tantamount to saying that “humans evolved from monkeys,” a facile yet common misinterpretation of one of the theory’s basic principles: hypothetical relationships are inferred from shared common ancestry. In other words, we and monkeys and apes share a common original ancestor. One group did not evolve from the other. I’m not saying you are guilty of this but before evolution can be intelligently discussed this principle must be understood. [LA replies: Darwinians constantly say things such as that evolution “shaped” the chimp-like common ancestor of chimps and humans into humans.]
A fascinating evolution example I learned of recently involves the various finch species in the Galapagos (the so-called Darwin’s finches). Apparently they “merge” into what appears to be one unspecialized “super species” when times are fat, but when environmental stresses recur, they separate back into their respective, niche-defined “species.” This is a rather peculiar nesiotic example of evolutionary dynamics. The genotypic and phenotypic constitution of plants and animals is malleable to an extraordinary degree and this should not in the least detract from anyone’s belief that it is by God’s grace that such perfect mechanisms exist.
Hannon writes:
Thanks for posting the reference to your earlier thoughts on this. I should have thought of searching for it myself and look forward to taking it all in. Off hand I can’t see that “randomness” cancels out “purposefulness,” however. The purpose of randomness—almost certainly the wrong word in any case—is to produce the best outcome, leading to the present arrangement. This occurs by divine guidance, if you are so inclined. Randomness does not translate to meaninglessness or lack of organization.
In connection with this idea I offer one additional point that has molded my thinking on the subject. In cases of “mass extinction”—we are told there have been four or more of these events in the last several hundred million years—the recovery plan is the same in every case. Diversification (speciation) increases exponentially and this pattern repeats after each devastation according to a principle(s) that is apparently unvarying and driven in one direction: toward the higher order of organisms and the higher order of the systems they comprise. That is not randomness but it is evolution.
Chris L. writes:
James W. writes: “97 percent of our DNA is residing in our junk pile. We operate fully on three percent of it.”
This has been proven incorrect over the past 10-15 years. It was simply assumed that because a gene did not create a protein, it was junk and an evolutionary leftover. However, more recent scholarship has shown that the “junk” actually serves regulatory functions in which genes are expressed and how they are expressed. Most Darwinists have been backpedaling from the claim that most of the genome is junk. In reality, a lot of assumptions about how DNA and genes work are being tossed aside. This also has implications for the claim about chimps and humans sharing 93% (the number in common dropped recently) of the same DNA. Those comparisons are based on what scientists consider functioning genes. They do not take the entire genome and map every gene, nor could they, since humans and chimps do not have the same number of genes. Finally, as biologists have looked at the genomes of other animals, they have found genes that are necessary for more advanced features. For example, biologists have found genes for hearing and eyes in creatures that have neither. Some of those creatures are considered the most ancient creatures still alive. This is why some scientists have proposed that life is designed and that it evolved based on a pre-designed front-loaded scheme. Whether that is true or not, I do not know. I do know that a lot of people need to be more humble and realize we do not know much of anything and much of what we do know is going to be found to be wrong.
James W. writes:
Chris L. informs me. Amazing how quickly we can learn when we are not afraid to speak, and have learned how to listen.
I suspect that whatever the true number of the junk pile, or even if it exists as I understood it, it acquires a different relevance in Chris L.’s interesting and attractive understanding of the workings and design of life.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 28, 2007 01:56 AM | Send