tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post1516590667019349561..comments2024-02-29T03:57:00.088-05:00Comments on The Mermaid's Tale: Which came first? Or, the chicken or egg question is a non-questionAnne Buchananhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09212151396672651221noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-51329986789007344522010-04-27T22:16:43.228-04:002010-04-27T22:16:43.228-04:00And concerning Neanderthals, I suppose that anthro...And concerning Neanderthals, I suppose that anthropologists have yet to unequivocally classify them as <i>Homo neanderthalensis</i> while there's some chance that they're <i>H. sapiens neanderthalensis</i>. And I admit that I get dizzied trying to follow the last 25 years of related discoveries and scientific bickering.:)James Goetzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02412501436355228925noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-8350294301807707392010-04-27T19:15:00.987-04:002010-04-27T19:15:00.987-04:00Yes, the origin of "abstract thought adaptati...Yes, the origin of "abstract thought adaptations" presumably helped with hunting and defense against lions and other dangerous animals while the byproducts of those adaptions included poetry and math.James Goetzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02412501436355228925noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-14622124574379965692010-04-27T14:22:35.551-04:002010-04-27T14:22:35.551-04:00Yes, that's what I thought. First, I'd sa...Yes, that's what I thought. First, I'd say the definition of humans as the 'rational animal' (goes back to Aristotle) is perfectly OK to do, since definitions are arbitrary.<br /><br />But it can be misleading. What about, say, Neanderthals. It would be hard to state that they weren't rational. As an evolutionary biologist I'd say that other animals, maybe much more divergent from us than we like to fancy, are capable of abstract thought. But that, again, may be a matter of definition.<br /><br />I would agree that whatever gave us (or whoever before us in our ancestry) the power of abstract thought it would not be related to math or poetry, but other things, like imagining where prey might be without having to smell them, etc.<br /><br />Of course, I'd b the last to deny the reasonableness of philosophical statements or approaches to life!Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-62889350367970684332010-04-27T14:16:07.039-04:002010-04-27T14:16:07.039-04:00I'll clarify two things. First, my statement a...I'll clarify two things. First, my statement about abstract thought defining humanity isn't a scientific statement but a philosophical statement. Second, I made no suggestion about divine assistance but that various nervous system adaptations in humans enabled both religious experiences and the development of scientific theories (see Newberg and D'Aquili).James Goetzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02412501436355228925noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-89579885157723852192010-04-25T07:58:06.571-04:002010-04-25T07:58:06.571-04:00The basic argument is not new. Wallace thought hu...The basic argument is not new. Wallace thought humans needed divine assistance because of the calculus kind of reasoning. Your idea that it is abstract reasoning (or something of that sort), not calculus per se, is the obvious answer.<br /><br />However, it would almost certainly not be a mutation in one gene, or suddenly arise and then persist. It would come on gradually over many many generations with many genes contributing and gradually attain its current state, in which there is variation in the nature of each of our 'abstract reasoning' abilities (that's of course hard even to define). However natural selection were involved, it would work on the net ability, not the specific gene.<br /><br />Speciation and adaptation may be correlated but they are not the same. That's not widely appreciated, because the usual Darwinian explanation is that after a lot of separation time, different adaptations occur in different isolated populations, and this leads to them evolving into different species. But diverse adaptations don't imply mating barriers (species formation) and mating barriers can be created by single mutations (examples are known) with no other adaptations.Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-56005279212600521162010-04-24T22:46:14.293-04:002010-04-24T22:46:14.293-04:00Hi Ken and Anne,
This blog makes you guys more pr...Hi Ken and Anne,<br /><br />This blog makes you guys more prolific than I ever imagined.:)<br /><br />Anyway, per your post, I suppose part of the problem is that this has nothing to do with the origin of species, but only the origin of traits. And in the case of "thinking related traits," specimens could have a thinking related trait with no outward evidence of it. For example, I suppose we can safely assume that many humans for thousands of years had the nervous system hardware to do calculus before Leibniz and Newton discovered calculus. And there was no outward evidence of this until Leibniz and Newton discovered calculus.<br /><br />I am interested in the origin of abstract thinking, which is needed for both scientific theory and religious experiences. Regardless of the nebulousness of defining the origin of <i>Homo sapiens,</i> I hold that abstract thinking defines humanity. I also understand that this has caveats. For example, perhaps at least some infants might have died before developing abstract thoughts. And perhaps some congenital disorders prevented some humans from developing abstract thoughts even in adulthood. (This is my educated guess.)<br /><br />In general, I assume that a particular genotype caused the origin of nervous system hardware in a hominid specimen. The parents of this hominid were close to having the nervous system hardware for abstract thinking, but fell short of it by a "straw." Then originated the germ-line "genotypic straw that broke the camels back" while the first hominid developed nervous system hardware capable of abstract thought. Others in the same population around the same time might have been born with the same trait. And hominids with the "abstract thought trait" would have siblings and without the trait. And unless the trait was homozygotic and included a strong mating selection, then some children of the hominids with the abstract thought trait would not have the trait. And the first hominids with the abstract thought trait would have been nurtured by parents without the trait, which could have slowed down the outward evidence of the trait.<br /><br />By the way, I have little idea when this scenario happened or what it would take to figure out when it happened give or take a few thousand years.:) And I hope you could follow what I summarized above.:)James Goetzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02412501436355228925noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-18789997831431667972010-04-13T09:18:28.618-04:002010-04-13T09:18:28.618-04:00Well, the truth is that if a egg is a chicken, whi...Well, the truth is that if a egg is a chicken, which it certainly is in the biological sense, so is an embryo. <br /><br />The pro-life/pro-choice debate is only properly viewed as an anthropological one about defining what 'counts' as human life, a cultural issue not a biological one.Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-18316495854947631942010-04-13T09:15:07.086-04:002010-04-13T09:15:07.086-04:00Sam, I thought they were both making a strong argu...Sam, I thought they were both making a strong argument pro vegan.Anne Buchananhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09212151396672651221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-72252607518752889602010-04-13T09:13:04.627-04:002010-04-13T09:13:04.627-04:00Holly, that sounds like fodder for pro-lifers. Ke...Holly, that sounds like fodder for pro-lifers. Ken, not so much.anthrobrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11123542292465758479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-43656727805075382062010-04-13T07:10:44.645-04:002010-04-13T07:10:44.645-04:00Yes, and chickens are just continuation of chicken...Yes, and chickens are just continuation of chicken-cells all the way back to Ur-chicken, the AdamEve of chickens, which of course is just a continuation of bird-cells,etc.<br /><br />They are obviously the same because you can also fry a chicken as well as an egg. You can have a chicken or an egg sandwich. <br /><br />But there is a difference. I know what an egg over easy is, but...Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-74151689585434428572010-04-13T06:42:10.358-04:002010-04-13T06:42:10.358-04:00The egg IS a chicken.The egg IS a chicken.Holly Dunsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05260104967932801186noreply@blogger.com