Uncommon Descent Contest 20: Why should human evolution be taught in school?
| January 16, 2010 | Posted by O'Leary under Uncommon Descent Contest |
I just came across this fact in the journal Nature: Little is known about human evolution other than basic outline.
Note: This contest has been judged. Go here for announcement.
So, contrary to widely heard huffing, there are huge gaps in our understanding of early humans. In Nature’s 2020 Visions (7 January 2010) Scroll down to Leslie C. Aiello, and we learn
Most of the recent effort in hominin palaeontology has been focused on Africa and Europe. But the announcement in 2004 of the small hominin Homo floresiensis in Indonesia was a warning that we are naive to assume we know more than the basic outline of human evolutionary history. If H. floresiensis is indeed a surviving remnant of early Homo that left Africa around 2 million years ago, we have to reject the long-standing idea that Homo erectus was the first African emigrant. We also must reject many hypotheses concerning the prerequisites for this emigration, such as a relatively large brain size, large body size and human-like limb proportions. Importantly, we must confront our relative ignorance about human evolution outside Europe and Africa.- “Hominin paleontology”
Now, I don’t believe for a moment that 2020 is going to yield a whole lot more information, as Mr. Aiello* hopes – more likely a whole lot more grant applications, as more people graduate and need a focus for their work.
That doesn’t mean the work isn’t worth doing. It does, however, raise a key question: Why are people expected to learn in school whatever evolution story is currently taken seriously – by whomever and for whatever reason?
When I was in school fifty years ago, we struggled through polynomials, the life cycle of the common toad, and how to behave on stage when putting on a fragment of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar – facts that were not under dispute and unlikely to change in the lifetime of anyone present.
Anyway, courtesy of the Discovery Institute, I have a copy of David Berlinski’s The Deniable Darwin, for the best answer to the question: Why is human evolution, in its actual present state, compulsorily taught in schools? Why are people going to court in order to force the teaching?
Here are the contest rules. Winners get a certificate as well as the prize. You do not need to give me your actual address, just an address I can send the prize to, and we never save addresses for a mailing list.
*Aiello is President, Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research
143 Responses to Uncommon Descent Contest 20: Why should human evolution be taught in school?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Yes, the difference between two inanimate things can be explained by the arrangement of matter, energy and information. The difference bewteen a living thing and an inanimate thing can be explained by the arrangenment of matter, energy and information. The difference bewteen a living thing and a dead thing can be explained by the arrangement of matter, energy and information. The difference bewteen two living things can be explained by the arrangement of matter, energy and information.
If you think additional fundamental entities need to be invoked to explain any of these diffeences, YOU must supply the argument, and the evidence. So far you have not.
Let me invoke an authority I am sure you will respect:
This is YOUR list. We are only quibbling about the fourth number.
Living things are comprised of water and lipids and proteins and enzymes and nucleic acids and other stuff – chemicals. Biochemists have been studying these things for years, learning how these chemicals can interact in certain ways to enable metabolism, growth, response to stimuli, and reproduction. Surely you were aware of this? Surely you are aware that NONE of the researchers in biochemistry have needed to invoke a new fundamental entity (“life”) to explain any of the observed phenomena of living things? The properties of chemicals (“matter”) and their states and interactions (“energy”) and their arrangement (“information”) seems to be sufficient. If you have identified a deficiency, please let us know.
Mr Hayden,
Yes, I think you understand my position correctly. What we call life is an emergent property of some complex arrangements of matter and energy. These arrangements are far from equilibrium, and stay far from equilibrium over extended periods of time by processing matter and energy available in the environment. That’s my thumbnail definition.
I don’t think there a special property called ‘life’ which is a substance (elan vital) that is inside living bodies and not present elsewhere in the universe.
In addition, the category itself is fuzzy, with edge cases which are not clear (either due to our current ignorance, or because the category is inherently fuzzy). Some examples:
A dormant seed or spore. When is it clear that it is alive or dead?
A virus. Sure a virus needs a very specific environment, but so do I.
A bacterial cell that has just died. What is the change that just happened at the moment of death?
Abiogenesis. I remember reading an essay on abiogenesis that made the point that near the beginning of life’s development, the boundary between molecules occaisionally interacting and consistent packages of molecules could have wavered back and forth – life could have sputtered for a while before catching hold.
As an emergent property, it does imply that there is some gradation across this fuzzy boundary. You could say that a fire, or an avalance of rocks rolling downhill, fit the definition. The fire and the avalanche are way over on one side of the spectrum, and mice, flowers, and bacteria are way over on the other. In the middle are the kind of things I gave examples of earlier. What does it mean for the definition of life that there are viruses that are larger than bacteria? Personally, I do accept this fuzziness as inherent in the category – life cannot be defined crisply and precisely.
Tom MH,
You don’t have any evidence to support your claim but you know my claim is wrong.
Got it.
BTW biochemists cannot demonstrate that living organisms are reducible to matter, energy and information.
Tom MH:
So your “evidence” is just to keep repeating that bit of unsupported tripe?
Tom MH:
Yet no one can demonstrate they are reducible to chemicals- water and lipids and proteins and enzymes (which are proteins) and nucleic acids.
That tells me there is something else required.
My answer would be yes. There is no need to invoke an additional fundamental entity (“life” particles”?) and no evidence for its existence.
Not everything that is alive has a brain — most of the biomass of Earth consists of bacteria.
I didn’t say your claim was wrong, I said it was supported by neither logic nor data. I’ve invited you to offer one or the other, or both. Your argument seems to be summarized in the following:
Of COURSE they are reducible to chemicals — from where do you think we learned about those chemicals in the first place?
Required for what? What observation about living things can be only be explained by the introduction of a new fundamental entity?
Tom MH:
Just saying it doesn’t make it so.
Of COURSE studying biology isn’t the same as understanding its origins.
Tom MH:
We have been over this already- the difference between living organisms and non-living matter.
We have observed that differences exist and have gone about cataloging those differences.
Biologists make a living because of those differences.
And it cannot be explained by calling on matter, energy, information, chance and necessity.
And BTW I am not introducing a fundamental new entity-
It has existed for quite a long, long time.
All I am doing is pointing it out.
If you don’t want to look that is understandable. Your position just cannot allow for such an entity so it cannot exist.
Got it.
Mr Joseph,
And BTW I am not introducing a fundamental new entity-
It has existed for quite a long, long time.
I agree. You did not create life. Or the idea of “life”. Or the Game of LIFE (TM).
But you also haven’t got past the “life is alive” step in explaining this fundamental thing. I’ve asked you previously for an example of two objects, one living, one dead, which have exactly the same arrangement of matter and energy.
I can measure matter in grams, energy in joules, information in bits. What is life measured in? The ‘vit’? How many vits in a rock? A fire? A computer (off)? A computer (running a CA like Evoloops)? A flower? A baby? A pregnant woman? A mosquito full of malaria? How do you know?
What specific differences cannot be explained by your (new and expanded!) list? I am looking for something a bit more specific than “life lives, and non-life doesn’t”. Can you cite an example?