Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Human or not?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Heidelberg man (Wikipedia)

A recent post on Uncommon Descent correctly pointed out that Neanderthal man was not a primitive species of human being, but a race of people who buried their dead and had larger brains than ours. Consequently, evidence that some modern people have Neanderthal DNA in their genes does not constitute evidence for the common ancestry of humans and apes, per se. Indeed, Casey Luskin made this very point in an article on Evolution News, in response to claims by evolutionists Karl Giberson and Francis Collins in their book The Language of Science and Faith (InterVarsity Press, 2011, pp. 43-44) that evidence for a genetic connection between modern humans and Neanderthals bolsters the case for “common ancestry.”

Now, I happen to believe that humans and apes do in fact share a common ancestry, although I would add that the development of the human brain since humans and apes diverged must have been intelligently guided, and I would also argue that nothing about the human brain can explain intentionality or free will. But what I’d like to discuss today is the question of whether Heidelberg man, the presumed common ancestor of Neanderthals and modern human beings, was also a true human being.

“Why does this matter?” I hear you ask. Because if Heidelberg man wasn’t a true human being, then we’d have a very odd situation indeed: two distinct races of human beings (Neanderthals and us) both diverged from a non-human ancestor. Heidelberg man certainly had a brain capacity in the modern range, but as yet we do not know whether he was capable of language, art or religion.

In a 2009 article entitled Evolution of the Genus Homo (Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 2009. 37:67–92, doi: 10.1146/annurev.earth.031208.100202), anthropologists Ian Tattersall and Jeffrey Schwartz write:

The first truly cosmopolitan Homo species is Homo heidelbergensis, known from Africa, Europe, and China following 600 kyr ago [600,000 years ago – VJT]. One species sympatric with it included the >500-kyr-old Sima de los Huesos fossils from Spain, clearly distinct from Homo heidelbergensis and the oldest hominids assignable to the clade additionally containing Homo neanderthalensis. This clade also shows evidence of brain size expansion with time; but although Homo neanderthalensis had a large brain, it left no unequivocal evidence of the symbolic consciousness that makes our species unique…

There is a good deal of variation within this assemblage, … particularly in occipital morphology, nasal profile, the relation of the orbits to the anterior cranial cavity, and the extent of bony pneumatization. But all specimens show the same basic morphology, with a consistent relationship of the face to the cranial vault, brains in the 1120 to 1285 ml range [cf. the average of 1350 ml for modern human beings – VJT], broad and massive lower faces topped by very tall supraorbital margins that peak at approximately midorbit, and twisting anterior supraorbital surfaces (Schwartz & Tattersall 2005).

The very earliest evidence yet recovered for the controlled use of fire in one place over a sustained period of time currently comes from a 595-kyr-old site in Israel (Goren-Inbar et al. 2004), where thick deposits of ash have been found; but it is not until after Terra Amata times that evidence for the domestic use of fire is found more or less routinely in hominid sites. From the same general period come the miraculously preserved 400 kyr old wooden spears from Schoeningen, Germany (Thieme 1997). These weapons, over two meters in length, are carefully shaped with their center of balance far forward, as in modern javelins and not at all as in thrusting spears. The penetrating power of their carefully sharpened wooden tips has been questioned, but use of these spears as missiles would imply ambush hunting, a more sophisticated means of obtaining animal prey than might have been inferred from the lithic record alone. Clearly, in the heyday of Homo heidelbergensis we encounter evidence of a cognitively much more complex hominid than any known in the earlier record—although, significantly, there is no artifact known in this time frame that can unambiguously be interpreted as a symbolic object.

We cannot be certain, however, that all of the significant technological innovations just discussed were actually made by Homo heidelbergensis, because this species clearly shared the Earth with other kinds of hominid. (Emphases mine – VJT.)

The Wikipedia article on Heidelberg man adds:

In theory recent findings in Atapuerca (Spain) also suggest that H. heidelbergensis may have been the first species of the Homo genus to bury their dead, even offering gifts.

Some experts believe that H. heidelbergensis, like its descendant H. neanderthalensis, acquired a primitive form of language. No forms of art or sophisticated artifacts other than stone tools have been uncovered, although red ochre, a mineral that can be used to create a red pigment which is useful as a paint, has been found at Terra Amata excavations in the south of France. (Emphases mine – VJT.)

What do readers think? Was Heidelberg man human or not? And how would you go about deciding that fact? Any ideas?

Comments
Looking over some old threads I think I was being a bit dense about this whole issue of the designer. I apologise to one and all whom I may have annoyed or frustrated. And thanks again to CY for taking the time to explain it. Off to work, see y'all later!ellazimm
May 23, 2011
May
05
May
23
23
2011
12:06 AM
12
12
06
AM
PDT
CY: Thank you. You've been very clear and I shan't bring it up anymore. I apologise for going on about it but I got it now and I got it from you not from me making any assumptions. Personally, I find the theories of a multiverse to be only one step beyond science fiction. And a very small step at that. But, I haven't the background to understand the arguments so I tend to shut up about it. But I know that scientists makes lots and lots of hypotheses most of which eventually get tossed out. So, I tend to ignore discussions of the multiverse for now.ellazimm
May 22, 2011
May
05
May
22
22
2011
11:47 PM
11
11
47
PM
PDT
"Why is the subject taboo?" It's not taboo. Most of us who think along the lines of ID simply don't think it's a fruitful discussion. You're quite free to discuss it if you wish, but I don't think there are many who really want to go there for reasons other than that it's taboo. Materialists have set up enough speculative hypotheses to consider; which have not been fruitful in lending meaning to our reality, and they do so as if it's in the same league as empirical science. Does the multiverse ring a bell?CannuckianYankee
May 22, 2011
May
05
May
22
22
2011
11:38 PM
11
11
38
PM
PDT
El, I believe we've had this discussion before, and if I remember correctly, you're the one who raised it then. Let me simplify this for you so we can get on with the topic here: Even if we were to speculate about all the possible designers there could be, and even as you suggest, we come up with a test for determining which proposed designer is the most likely, I don't think we're anywhere near an ability to do such a test. We have precisely zero evidence that there are alien beings from other planets, so the panspermia hypothesis cannot be tested, even if it might be a good one. If the designer is an all powerful God of some sort (which I believe), how are we to deal with the hypothetical that such a designer might not wish to be known in such a way, and in order to assure such a desire, has made it impossible for us to do such a test? I'm not saying this is so, but it's a hypothetical possibility among literally millions of others. So you see, as Mung has pointed out, all you are left with is mere speculation about a vast number of possibilities, even if you have narrowed down the designer to just those two choices. I don't think at the present time such an inquiry would be fruitful unless such a designer chooses to be known in such a way (I'm talking by means of scientific investigation), and if so, I think by now we would have known. Talk about the designer as God is something we do frequently here, but we don't do so in reference to any scientific evidence that the very God we believe in is proven by a design inference. We approach it as an issue that is separate from science. The only thing we are able to infer by evidence for design is that some intelligence did the designing somehow. Of course this requires by default that there be a designer, but it does not require that such a designer is the God we believe in, or any of the millions of other possibilities. Those of us who are theists believe in such a God on other evidences besides design. Those in the ID camp who are not theists can then be left without necessitating a commitment to any particular theistic position; which is how it should be. Consider deists. I think the fact that some of them support ID is a case in point. I know that the camp you're in would really like us to touch on this issue more so than we have, but I can assure you, it's not likely to happen precisely for the reasons I've already given.CannuckianYankee
May 22, 2011
May
05
May
22
22
2011
11:29 PM
11
11
29
PM
PDT
Mung: I don't understand what my views have to do with discussing some of the possible implications or ramifications of your beliefs. And even if no one wants to talk to me about these issues because of the category I fall into, why are you not talking about it with people who do accept the design inference? Why is the subject taboo?ellazimm
May 22, 2011
May
05
May
22
22
2011
09:59 PM
9
09
59
PM
PDT
I’m still finding it very odd that there seems to be no interest in pushing on when everyone here seems to accept that the design inference is correct. But I guess that’s just me.
You reject the design inference. It follows that not everyone here accepts the design inference. It's not just you. It's everyone who comes here and denies the design inference but who still wants to talk about "the designer." It's those who come here an claim that no inference at all can be made without knowledge of "the designer." I hope that you understand that when you come here and want to talk about "the designer" or "the designers' without actually admitting to any actual case of design, you immediately place yourself into a particular category.Mung
May 22, 2011
May
05
May
22
22
2011
08:54 PM
8
08
54
PM
PDT
Mung: Well, the things I listed that are primarily influenced by certain chunks of DNA I would think would have a good argument for being designed. The other things could be construed as being, at the very least, allowed to happen by a malevolent overseer. IF you accept that there is design then don't you have to accept a designer or designers? And then is it not fair to speculate and hypothesise about the nature of that designer(s)? And if you find one hypothesis is more explanatory then is that not more parsimonious than the other hypotheses? What bigger questions WOULD you be interested in pursuing? I'm still finding it very odd that there seems to be no interest in pushing on when everyone here seems to accept that the design inference is correct. But I guess that's just me.ellazimm
May 21, 2011
May
05
May
21
21
2011
10:47 PM
10
10
47
PM
PDT
The question I was referring to was about checking which designer hypothesis is correct. But no one seems interested in proposing a hypothesis or determining a procedure/experiment to test it.
I don't know how you would even begin to come up with a hypothesis.
My favourite hypothesis is that the designer is a malevolent alien (or group of aliens) that are sadistically torturing us with prostate cancer, Alzheimer’s, arthritis, poverty, malaria, ebola, autism, lupus, HIV, earthquakes and Lady Gaga.
But what makes you think any of those things are even designed in the first place? See, for me, we'd have to start with the evidence first, and then we can see how far we can follow it using the methods of science. Of course, once we think we have detected actual design, we can ask it what it might tell us with respect to other "bigger questions" that are outside the realm of science to address. My own personal experience is that those who are against intelligent design won't even admit to any instance of design in the first place. And they don't think there is anything science doesn't address. And they think science is the only source of knowledge. It's not easy to reason with a person like that.Mung
May 21, 2011
May
05
May
21
21
2011
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT
Mung: I was hoping you'd respond with a bit more. Or someone else. I guess it's not something anyone is interested in OR wants to address. Or it's not science. Even if the designer is NOT divine?ellazimm
May 21, 2011
May
05
May
21
21
2011
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT
Mung: The question I was referring to was about checking which designer hypothesis is correct. But no one seems interested in proposing a hypothesis or determining a procedure/experiment to test it. Too bad, I was hoping for some really interesting and clever ideas. Especially as it's been stated many, many times that ID theory is consistent with many different kinds of designers. My favourite hypothesis is that the designer is a malevolent alien (or group of aliens) that are sadistically torturing us with prostate cancer, Alzheimer's, arthritis, poverty, malaria, ebola, autism, lupus, HIV, earthquakes and Lady Gaga.ellazimm
May 20, 2011
May
05
May
20
20
2011
11:09 PM
11
11
09
PM
PDT
To make something seems to require a certain level of intent, does it not? Not only does it require intent, it also requires an ability to identify a goal. And the ability to plan a path to attain that goal.Mung
May 20, 2011
May
05
May
20
20
2011
06:19 PM
6
06
19
PM
PDT
Lamont, Thank you for your post. I would have to respectfully disagree with your assertion that a chimpanzee could make a spear. Here are some articles by Glenn Morton that explain why it's not that simple: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/planningahead.htm http://home.entouch.net/dmd/mankind.htm You might think that Morton somewhat overstates his case, but he makes some very strong points, all the same, about the significant differences between human tools and those made by chimps.vjtorley
May 20, 2011
May
05
May
20
20
2011
05:13 PM
5
05
13
PM
PDT
I guess we all have our own idea of how a designer or designers would behave.
I wouldn't really agree with that. I think we all share pretty much the same expectations.
Now, the question must be: how do we check and see which hypothesis is correct?
First we'd need an hypothesis (or two or three).
Answering that question does matter . . . yes??
I'm a bit slow. What question? How to test multiple hypotheses about how designers might behave? Or "how do we check and see which hypothesis is correct?" Lacking any such hypothesis, I'm at a loss.
Finding ways to answer that question should be a priority . . . yes?
Not as far as I can tell. Certainly not for me. But again, I need clarity on what question you are talking about.
Working towards an answer to that question should be a research emphasis . . . yes?
Um, no. Or better yet, why? What is that question and why should it be a research priority?
And if those questions are NOT appropriate then why? Why are those questions not being investigated? What questions? Why are they not being investigated by whom? Sorry, you've lost me. What is "the question" or "that question" to which you were referring? What are "those questions" which you think ought to to be the subject of priority in research. I don't mean to be difficult, but somehow I've lost track of what you're talking about. You asked a series of questions in your post. Are they the "those questions" you are talking about in your last question?
Mung
May 20, 2011
May
05
May
20
20
2011
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT
Mung: I guess we all have our own idea of how a designer or designers would behave. Now, the question must be: how do we check and see which hypothesis is correct? Answering that question does matter . . . yes?? Finding ways to answer that question should be a priority . . . yes? Working towards an answer to that question should be a research emphasis . . . yes? And if those questions are NOT appropriate then why? Why are those questions not being investigated? Chris: I have watched Red Dwarf . . . over 20 years ago. I don't remember that episode . .. I will try and keep it in mind though. I believe that 'life' as in The Matrix has been addressed by philosophers, et al. Personally, I can not believe that the time lag between a simulation input and an output could ever reach the speeds exhibited in the films.ellazimm
May 20, 2011
May
05
May
20
20
2011
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT
Hey Ellazimm, did you ever watch Red Dwarf, particularly the episode called 'Better Than Life'? If not, you should! If so, there is a lesson there which echoes some theological teachings that provides some insights into your questions. What if life really is a simulation, that we all chose to participate in knowing full well what we were letting ourselves in for? A test offering great rewards (and punishment for failure). It wouldn't be much of a test if the answers came easy.Chris Doyle
May 20, 2011
May
05
May
20
20
2011
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT
Why not just present yourself to your creations, in person so to speak?
Interesting you should ask that, since this is precisely what does happen in the story in Genesis. And if "the designer" is an immaterial being? Or if "the designer" made everything but had to die to do so, so it's no longer around to show itself off. Your second argument, about DNA sequences, is just a variation on the first. But the ability to even look for a message in DNA is only a recent one. So that's out. Why doesn't the designer just make itself blantantly obvious? That's what you're asking, right? How about a sign in the sky every morning saying "Made by Design." How many morning would it take of seeing the same thing over and over before people would say, nah, that's not an indicator of a designer.Mung
May 20, 2011
May
05
May
20
20
2011
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT
Mung: Why not just present yourself to your creations, in person so to speak? Or, in the case of the DNA record . . . . why not pick from the plethora of redundancies in the genetic code different combinations of codons for different species so that once humans became intelligent enough to read the code they realise that humans could not have a common ancestor with apes or monkeys or lemurs or tigers or mole rats or crocodiles or carrots? It would be easy enough to do and would be a slam dunk against common descent with modification. I would think making sure the message was unambiguous to the point of being beyond contention would be a priority. I know when I want to make a point to my creation, my son, I make very, very sure to be as clear and complete as possible, considering his level of development. Maybe the designer has done so and is just waiting for us to get a bit more clever? "The universe is full of magical things, patiently waiting for our wits to grow sharper." EDEN PHILLPOTTS (1862-1960) English novelist & playwrightellazimm
May 20, 2011
May
05
May
20
20
2011
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT
The pattern would be difficult to explain by appeal to "nature" acting alone. Evolutionary explanations would be difficult. Much like the pattern we actually do see, such as the Cambrian explosion and discontinuities in the fossil record.Mung
May 20, 2011
May
05
May
20
20
2011
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT
Mung: a good question! And your answer is . . .ellazimm
May 19, 2011
May
05
May
19
19
2011
11:12 PM
11
11
12
PM
PDT
And now I really am going to bed!! Night all!
Wait! No, you can't! Come back here!
Or that you don’t care? Or that you’re not willing to harbour a guess? And why not?
I'll offer this. If I were "the one and only designer" and I wanted to create something along the lines of humans, and I wanted to make sure they could know I exist and maybe even know a little about me, iow, I wanted to somehow send a "message" that they could read from looking at the created world, what sort of creation would that look like, what sort of pattern would life exhibit?Mung
May 19, 2011
May
05
May
19
19
2011
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT
vj, There is no abstract reasoning involved in making a spear. Find a straight stick, put one end in a fire, rub it against a stone, and you have a spear. Chimps do almost as much in preparing a stick to catch termites. Animal intelligence is perfectly capable of manipulating physical objects to produce some immediate effect. Human rationality leads to understanding and creativity that produces artifacts that cannot be explained as the result of accidental discoveries. Blurring the line between animals and humans is not helpful here.Lamont
May 19, 2011
May
05
May
19
19
2011
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT
Mung: I can't think of anything in nature that I would considered designed. As much as I would like to blame someone for some things. I'm so tired of things going wrong. And yes, you have addressed where you would look for the evidence, thank you. I do find myself more favourable of a malevolent designer than a benevolent one but that's just me. And now I really am going to bed!! Night all!ellazimm
May 19, 2011
May
05
May
19
19
2011
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT
Mung: Uh . . . . does that mean you have already decided/know the nature of the designer(s)?
No. I think that remains to be seen. Tell me something from nature you think is designed, and why, and I'll happily comment.
Or that you don’t care? Or that you’re not willing to harbour a guess? And why not?
I don't much care about going down rabbit holes, that's for sure. I prefer to take a scientific approach and then follow the evidence where it leads. But first, the evidence.
Or to give me some ideas of worthwhile areas of ID research?
See my two posts starting here.
Anyone else? There’s got to be tons of stuff!
I'm sure there is.Mung
May 19, 2011
May
05
May
19
19
2011
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT
Dr Torley: THANK YOU!! I'm really pleased you were as specific as you were. I agree that that level of manipulation is not taxing to a deity but would be an interesting logistical issue for a non-transcendental designer. I think your comment about the downside of front loading is very good. I hadn't thought of that. Also, I find your decision to favour a minimalist approach to be sensible. Anyway, you've made your view clear and I appreciate that. You've reinforced my decision to come to this forum to find out what ID is about rather than reading about it elsewhere.ellazimm
May 19, 2011
May
05
May
19
19
2011
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT
Dr. Torley, I hold your common descent position, from the empirical evidence alone, to be a weaker position.bornagain77
May 19, 2011
May
05
May
19
19
2011
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT
bornagain77 (#20) Thank you for your posts. You write:
As to Theistic Evolutionists, who believe God guides evolution incrementally, all I ask you to consider is do you think that it would be easier for God to incrementally change the polyfunctional genome of a organism, maintaining functionality all the time, in a bottom up manner or do you think it would be easier for Him to design each kind of organism in a top down manner? The evidence clearly indicates ‘top-down’ design instead of bottom up tinkering.
As I wrote in my response to ellazimm, I prefer the term “manipulation” to “tweaking” or “tinkering”, as the last two terms suggest minor, incremental changes, whereas the Designer, I believe, made major changes requiring a high degree of foresight at times. You have made an excellent case showing exactly why we need to postulate major changes made by the Designer, in order to cross evolutionary chasms. Conceptually, these changes (acts of design) are tantamount to creative acts. The difference is, though, that I envisage the Designer as radically modifying existing designs, rather than starting from scratch every time. Thus on a material level, I affirm common descent, but it's common descent with periodic manipulations by the Designer. I hope that clarifies my position. Finally, as regards Heidelberg man, I agree that if he wan't religious, he couldn't have been human. However, I'm also inclined to think that no creature could possess the intelligence required to make a wooden spear and yet be incapable of grasping the human concept of God. Hence I would infer that Heidelberg man must have been religious, if he was fully human.vjtorley
May 19, 2011
May
05
May
19
19
2011
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT
ellazimm (#18) Thank you for your post. You ask:
So . . . do you think the designer looked at the rate of development and said: hang on, this is not quite what I was hoping for, I think I’d better tweak things a bit. Or . . . ? I’m not trying to be flippant. I really am interested in what you think happened. And I think UD is the forum for you to express your ideas. Was there a one-off genome change? Or several nudges as things went on? Since genetic changes take time to manifest themselves how would the designer decide when to make a change and when to wait.
I prefer the term "manipulation" to "tweaking" or "tinkering", as the last two terms suggest minor, incremental changes, whereas the Designer, I believe, made major changes requiring a high degree of foresight at times. As regards timing: the default hypothesis I'm adopting is that the Designer accomplished His goals with the least effort. I reject the clockwork universe much loved by theistic evolutionists, precisely because I see it as entailing more work for the Designer. For instance, one reason why I reject front-loading is that it would have required an extraordinary degree of precision on the Designer's part to guarantee results billions of years into the future. Hhowever, the universe is not designed to that level of precision, as lengths are quantized in units of 1.6 x 10^-35 m (a Planck length). You might also like to have a look at The Front-Loading Fiction by physicist Dr. Rob Sheldon. I believe that the various kinds of proteins we find in the human body were designed, so we're probably looking at 1 million design events there. On top of that, I believe that each family of organisms (roughly) would have required some degree of genetic manipulation by the Designer to bring about its emergence, so we're talking another 10,000 or so events there - perhaps 10 times more if we include all the families of organisms that have ever existed. However, I don't think that genera and species were designed, with the exception of human beings. So we're looking at about 1.1 million design events over the 3.5 billion-year history of life on Earth, or roughly one act of manipulation over 3,000 years. Hardly taxing work for a Deity, especially one that's already maintaining the entire cosmos in existence.vjtorley
May 19, 2011
May
05
May
19
19
2011
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT
Mung Thank you for your posts. I'd like to respond to some of your comments. You ask:
If Heidelberg man is capable of passing “information” along to objects, where did that information come from?
From his mind. You also ask:
If we found what appeared to be a tool, and upon “design analysis” we determined based upon the “information” content that it was indeed a designed object rather than a natural object, but then we discover it is in the vacinity of Heidelberg man, would we need to say it’s not designed after all?
I would say: definitely not. Have a look at these spears found at Schoningen, Germany, and dating from 400,000 years ago: http://www.ishtarsgate.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=1524 Whoever it was that made those spears was rational and possessed some sort of intelligence, in my opinion.vjtorley
May 19, 2011
May
05
May
19
19
2011
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT
Mung: Uh . . . . does that mean you have already decided/know the nature of the designer(s)? Or that you don't care? Or that you're not willing to harbour a guess? And why not? Or to give me some ideas of worthwhile areas of ID research? Anyone else? There's got to be tons of stuff!ellazimm
May 19, 2011
May
05
May
19
19
2011
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT
Which of those scenarios do YOU find most plausible and why? I’m sure you’ve thought about it.
Actually, no. What I have thought about is whether I think it's worth thinking about. :) I decided I'd rather spend my time thinking about other things.Mung
May 19, 2011
May
05
May
19
19
2011
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply