Showing posts with label Sociology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sociology. Show all posts

Wednesday, 19 March 2025

Sociology
Image: MIT News; iStock

World languages (for key, see Wikipedia source)
When did human language emerge? | MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In stark contrast to biblical literalism's simplistic and contradictory story, recent research provides a very different picture of the origins of human language. According to Bible literalists, there are two versions of how languages come about. In the first, the descendants of each of the sons of Noah spoke different languages; in the second, language originated just five generations after the mythical global flood, when the human population — miraculously expanded from eight closely related survivors - grew large enough to undertake a massive construction project. Supposedly, this project so alarmed God that he intervened by 'confounding their tongues' to stop their cooperation.

In contrast to these Bible stories which compete for the most ludicrous and unlikely, scientists led by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) have recently suggested that human language actually evolved between 100,000 and 135,000 years before creationists claim the universe itself existed. v
What is the current consensus on the time and place of the origins of language in humans?



There is currently no clear scientific consensus regarding the exact timing and location of the origins of human language, primarily because language leaves no direct fossil evidence. However, there is broad agreement around certain key points:

Timing of Language Origin:
  • General timeframe: Most researchers propose that fully-developed spoken language originated between 50,000 and 200,000 years ago, during the late Middle or early Upper Palaeolithic period, associated with anatomically modern Homo sapiens.
  • Genetic clues: Genetic evidence, particularly the emergence of the FOXP2 gene mutation (linked to speech and language capability), suggests language capacity existed at least around 150,000–200,000 years ago.
  • Cultural and archaeological indicators: A notable increase in symbolic behaviour, such as sophisticated art, toolmaking, and ritual practices approximately 40,000–70,000 years ago (often referred to as the "cognitive revolution"), is widely viewed as indirect evidence of fully developed linguistic capabilities. However, many linguists argue for a much earlier, more gradual development extending back hundreds of thousands of years.

Place of Origin:
  • Africa hypothesis: The widely supported "Out of Africa" theory of modern human evolution implies that language, like other uniquely human traits, likely emerged first in Africa, associated with early Homo sapiens populations around 150,000–200,000 years ago.
  • Multiple origins or dispersal: While most linguists and paleoanthropologists favour an African origin due to genetic and fossil evidence, some researchers have proposed language capabilities could have evolved independently or spread quickly as humans migrated. However, the single-origin hypothesis currently dominates.

Mechanism of Origin:
  • Gradual evolution: The prevailing view today is that language evolved gradually through incremental cognitive, anatomical, and social adaptations, rather than appearing abruptly.
  • Social complexity: Most researchers believe language emerged alongside increasing social complexity, facilitating cooperation, teaching, and cultural transmission, which in turn provided strong evolutionary advantages.

Current Scientific Consensus:
  • No direct fossil evidence means pinpointing exact dates or locations remains speculative.
  • Broad consensus: Language emerged gradually, probably in Africa, between 50,000–200,000 years ago, closely tied to the cognitive evolution of anatomically modern humans.

In summary, while the exact details remain debated, the dominant scientific consensus positions the origin of human language firmly within the evolutionary context of anatomically modern Homo sapiens in Africa, sometime around or shortly before humans began their global migrations.

ChatGPT4o [Response to user request]
Retrieved from https://chatgpt.com/

Information Continually updated
The findings of the MIT group are published, open access, in the journal Frontiers in Psychology and are explained by Peter Dizikes in MIT News:
When did human language emerge?
A new analysis suggests our language capacity existed at least 135,000 years ago, with language used widely perhaps 35,000 years after that.
It is a deep question, from deep in our history: When did human language as we know it emerge? A new survey of genomic evidence suggests our unique language capacity was present at least 135,000 years ago. Subsequently, language might have entered social use 100,000 years ago.

Our species, Homo sapiens, is about 230,000 years old. Estimates of when language originated vary widely, based on different forms of evidence, from fossils to cultural artifacts. The authors of the new analysis took a different approach. They reasoned that since all human languages likely have a common origin — as the researchers strongly think — the key question is how far back in time regional groups began spreading around the world.

The logic is very simple. Every population branching across the globe has human language, and all languages are related. [Based on what the genomics data indicate about the geographic divergence of early human populations] I think we can say with a fair amount of certainty that the first split occurred about 135,000 years ago, so human language capacity must have been present by then, or before.

Professor Shigeru Miyagawa, co-author.
Department of Linguistics and Philosophy
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA.

The paper, “Linguistic capacity was present in the Homo sapiens population 135 thousand years ago,” appears in Frontiers in Psychology. The co-authors are Miyagawa, who is a professor emeritus of linguistics and the Kochi-Manjiro Professor of Japanese Language and Culture at MIT; Rob DeSalle, a principal investigator at the American Museum of Natural History’s Institute for Comparative Genomics; Vitor Augusto Nóbrega, a faculty member in linguistics at the University of São Paolo; Remo Nitschke, of the University of Zurich, who worked on the project while at the University of Arizona linguistics department; Mercedes Okumura of the Department of Genetics and Evolutionary Biology at the University of São Paulo; and Ian Tattersall, curator emeritus of human origins at the American Museum of Natural History.

The new paper examines 15 genetic studies of different varieties, published over the past 18 years: Three used data about the inherited Y chromosome, three examined mitochondrial DNA, and nine were whole-genome studies.

All told, the data from these studies suggest an initial regional branching of humans about 135,000 years ago. That is, after the emergence of Homo sapiens, groups of people subsequently moved apart geographically, and some resulting genetic variations have developed, over time, among the different regional subpopulations. The amount of genetic variation shown in the studies allows researchers to estimate the point in time at which Homo sapiens was still one regionally undivided group.

Miyagawa says the studies collectively provide increasingly converging evidence about when these geographic splits started taking place. The first survey of this type was performed by other scholars in 2017, but they had fewer existing genetic studies to draw upon. Now, there are much more published data available, which when considered together point to 135,000 years ago as the likely time of the first split.

The new meta-analysis was possible because “quantity-wise we have more studies, and quality-wise, it’s a narrower window [of time],” says Miyagawa, who also holds an appointment at the University of São Paolo.

Like many linguists, Miyagawa believes all human languages are demonstrably related to each other, something he has examined in his own work. For instance, in his 2010 book, “Why Agree? Why Move?” he analyzed previously unexplored similarities between English, Japanese, and some of the Bantu languages. There are more than 7,000 identified human languages around the globe.

Some scholars have proposed that language capacity dates back a couple of million years, based on the physiological characteristics of other primates. But to Miyagawa, the question is not when primates could utter certain sounds; it is when humans had the cognitive ability to develop language as we know it, combining vocabulary and grammar into a system generating an infinite amount of rules-based expression.

Human language is qualitatively different because there are two things, words and syntax, working together to create this very complex system. No other animal has a parallel structure in their communication system. And that gives us the ability to generate very sophisticated thoughts and to communicate them to others.

Professor Shigeru Miyagawa.

This conception of human language origins also holds that humans had the cognitive capacity for language for some period of time before we constructed our first languages.

Language is both a cognitive system and a communication system. My guess is prior to 135,000 years ago, it did start out as a private cognitive system, but relatively quickly that turned into a communications system.

Professor Shigeru Miyagawa.

So, how can we know when distinctively human language was first used? The archaeological record is invaluable in this regard. Roughly 100,000 years ago, the evidence shows, there was a widespread appearance of symbolic activity, from meaningful markings on objects to the use of fire to produce ochre, a decorative red color.

Like our complex, highly generative language, these symbolic activities are engaged in by people, and no other creatures. As the paper notes, “behaviors compatible with language and the consistent exercise of symbolic thinking are detectable only in the archaeological record of H. sapiens.”

Among the co-authors, Tattersall has most prominently propounded the view that language served as a kind of ignition for symbolic thinking and other organized activities.

Language was the trigger for modern human behavior. Somehow it stimulated human thinking and helped create these kinds of behaviors. If we are right, people were learning from each other [due to language] and encouraging innovations of the types we saw 100,000 years ago.

Professor Shigeru Miyagawa.

To be sure, as the authors acknowledge in the paper, other scholars believe there was a more incremental and broad-based development of new activities around 100,000 years ago, involving materials, tools, and social coordination, with language playing a role in this, but not necessarily being the central force.

For his part, Miyagawa recognizes that there is considerable room for further progress in this area of research, but thinks efforts like the current paper are at least steps toward filling out a more detailed picture of language’s emergence.

Our approach is very empirically based, grounded in the latest genetic understanding of early homo sapiens. I think we are on a good research arc, and I hope this will encourage people to look more at human language and evolution.

Professor Shigeru Miyagawa.

Recent genome-level studies on the divergence of early Homo sapiens, based on single nucleotide polymorphisms, suggest that the initial population division within H. sapiens from the original stem occurred approximately 135 thousand years ago. Given that this and all subsequent divisions led to populations with full linguistic capacity, it is reasonable to assume that the potential for language must have been present at the latest by around 135 thousand years ago, before the first division occurred. Had linguistic capacity developed later, we would expect to find some modern human populations without language, or with some fundamentally different mode of communication. Neither is the case. While current evidence does not tell us exactly when language itself appeared, the genomic studies do allow a fairly accurate estimate of the time by which linguistic capacity must have been present in the modern human lineage. Based on the lower boundary of 135 thousand years ago for language, we propose that language may have triggered the widespread appearance of modern human behavior approximately 100 thousand years ago.

1 Introduction
More than any other trait, language defines us as human. Yet there is no clear agreement on when this crucial feature emerged in our evolution. Some who have studied the archaeological record suggest that language emerged in our lineage around 100 thousand years ago (kya) (Tattersall, 2012, 2017, 2018; Wadley, 2021), while others have claimed that some form of language preceded the emergence of modern humans (Albessard-Ball and Balzeau, 2018; Botha, 2020). Indeed, it has been argued [e.g., by Progovac (2016) and Dediu and Levinson (2018)] that language is not uniquely the property of the lineage that produced H. sapiens. Here we accept the reasoning of that behaviors compatible with language and the consistent exercise of symbolic thinking are detectable only in the archaeological record of H. sapiens (Tattersall, 2012; Berwick et al., 2013; Berwick and Chomsky, 2016), and approach the issue of the antiquity of language in our species by showing that, although it is not yet possible to identify the time when a linguistic capacity emerged, genomic evidence allows us to establish with reasonable certainty the latest point at which it must have been present in early H. sapiens populations.

Over the past 15 years, numerous studies have addressed the question of exactly when the first division occurred in the original stem population of early H. sapiens. While those studies do not tell us exactly when language emerged, they allow us to make a reasonable estimate of the lower boundary of the possible time range for this key occurrence. H. sapiens emerged as an anatomically distinctive entity by about 230kya (Vidal et al., 2022). Sometime after that speciation event, the first division occurred, with all descendant populations of that division having full-fledged language. From this universal presence of language, we can deduce that some form of linguistic capacity must have been present before the first population divergence. If the linguistic capacity had emerged in humans after the initial divergence, one would expect to find modern human populations that either do not have language, or that have some communication capacity that differs meaningfully from that of all other human populations. Neither is the case. The 7,000 or so languages in the world today share striking similarities in the ways in which they are constructed phonologically, syntactically, and semantically (Eberhard et al., 2023).

Genomic studies of early H. sapiens population broadly agree that the first division from the original stem is represented today by the Khoisan peoples of Southern Africa (Schlebusch et al., 2012). This conclusion was reached early on Vigilant et al. (1989), Knight et al. (2003), Tishkoff et al. (2007), and Veeramah et al. (2012), and it has more recently been bolstered by studies using newer genomic techniques (Fan et al., 2019; Lorente-Galdos et al., 2019; Schlebusch et al., 2017; Schlebusch et al., 2020; Pakendorf and Stoneking, 2021). The term “Khoisan” refers to a bio-genetic affiliation that is linked both to a proposed ancestor-group and to some modern peoples, living in present-day South Africa, who include modern speakers of the Khoe-Khwadi, Tuu, and Ju-ǂHoan languages that have some genetic affiliation to the first divergence of the human population (Güldemann and Sands, 2009; du Plessis, 2014). It follows that, if we can identify when the first division occurred, we can with reasonable certainty consider that date to define the lower boundary of when human language was present in the ancestral modern human population. Based on the results of studies focusing on whole genome single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), we estimate that this first division occurred at approximately 135kya. 1

Huybregts (2017) was the first to attempt to pinpoint the timing of the first division in this way. Although he suggested a date of ~125kya, close to our estimate of ~135kya, his estimate was necessarily based on a fairly narrow set of studies showing a remarkably variable range. The studies he examined ranged from the clearly implausible 300kya (Scally and Durbin, 2012), to 180kya (Rito et al., 2013) and as little as 100kya (Schlebusch et al., 2012). Pakendorf and Stoneking (2021) later listed several studies proposing that the first division was older than 160kya (Fan et al., 2019; Lorente-Galdos et al., 2019; Schlebusch et al., 2020), along with four others, from 140 to 110kya, that overlapped with the range suggested by Huybregts (Gronau et al., 2011; Veeramah et al., 2012; Mallick et al., 2016; Song et al., 2017). Several newer studies now allow us to approach the age of the first division with greater precision.
In conclusion, the researchers say:
4 The picture that emerges
Based on the recent genetic studies of early H. sapiens, we have pinpointed approximately 135kya as the moment at which some linguistic capacity must have been present in the human population. Looking forward from this event, modern human behaviors such as body decoration and the production of ochre pieces with symbolic engravings appeared as normative and persistent behaviors around 100kya. We believe that the time lag implied between the lower boundary of when language was present (135kya) and the emergence of normative modern human behaviors across the population suggests that language itself was the trigger that transformed nonlinguistic early H. sapiens (who nonetheless already possessed “language-ready” brains acquired at the origin of the anatomically distinctive species) into the symbolically-mediated beings familiar today. This development of the most sophisticated communication device in evolution allowed our ancestors to accelerate and consolidate symbolically-mediated behaviors until they became the norm for the entire species.

Miyagawa, Shigeru; DeSalle, Rob; Nóbrega, Vitor Augusto; Nitschke, Remo; Okumura, Mercedes; Tattersall, Ian
Linguistic capacity was present in the Homo sapiens population 135 thousand years ago Frontiers in Psychology (2025) 16 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1503900

Copyright: © 2025 The authors.
Published by Frontiers Media S.A. Open access.
Reprinted under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC BY 4.0)


It appears that the evolution of language in humans followed a familiar evolutionary pattern. Genetic mutations, including those affecting the FOXP2 gene—which influences brain development and vocal control—provided cognitive advantages, opening new opportunities for natural selection. This genetic foundation set human evolution onto a new trajectory, much like how feathers, originally evolved for insulation or display in dinosaurs, eventually led to powered flight in birds.

In contrast, simplistic explanations—such as the Bible's depiction of Noah's descendants rapidly diverging into different languages (Genesis 10–11), or a deity magically imposing language barriers to thwart human cooperation at Babel (Genesis 11)—reflect limited imagination and a profound misunderstanding of how closely related languages evolve geographically.

Today, science provides a coherent and evidence-based explanation, emphasizing gene-culture co-evolution and language divergence within geographically dispersed and partially fragmented human populations.
Advertisement

Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon


Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon


Advertisement



Thank you for sharing!






Last Modified: Fri Mar 28 2025 15:35:45 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time)

Wednesday, 8 May 2024

Losing Religion - Growing Distrust For Organized Religion As Christians Use Religion As An Excuse For Discrimination


Church attendance in Australia has fallen below 10%
Crisis of faith: why Australian women have so little trust in religious institutions

Attempts to give legal protection to religious people to practice their religion without fear of discrimination in Australia have run up against a predictable problem - Christians demanding the right to victimise, exclude and bully LGBTQ+ people and claiming it as their right under the anti-discrimination law.

We had a similar problem in UK some years ago when the ECHR was incorporated into UK law as the Human Rights Act, which, amongst other things, gave people the protection to practice their religion, free from discrimination as a basic human right. It also gave people freedom from discrimination on the grounds of gender or sexual orientation.

The two rights quickly came into conflict when Christians began demanding the right to carry on their tradition of bullying, victimizing and excluding gays, or denying them goods and services, on the grounds that denying them that right, deprived them of their privileged right to deprive other people of their human rights and decide to whom the law of the land applied.

This was clarified by the European Court which ruled that freedom from discrimination did not include the freedom to discriminate against others of your choosing on the grounds that your religion entitled you to do so. Human right applied to all and did not grant special privileges or exemptions to any group, no matter how entitled they felt to them.

Nevertheless, the argument rumbles on and Christian extremists are still lobbying for changes to the Human Rights Act or its abolition, to restore their right to bully and victimise minorities of their choice and decide who is entitled to what in society. The same bigots would react with outraged indignation if Muslims were demanding the right to impose Sharia on society or Jewish groups were lobbying for the right to impose Halakhah on the rest of us

In Australia, where this issue has recently emerged, it has done so against a growing distrust for organized religion, at least partly because of their record of bullying and discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community, and also because of the recent child sex-abuse scandals that have engulfed the Christian churches in Australia. It is these routine abuses of children and their subsequent cover ups by church authorities who often acted to facilitate them, that has probably cost the churches the trust of, especially, women in Australia.

A recent report found one in three Australian women had no trust at all in organised religion, a figure which rose to one in two for women between the ages of 18-29. Even one in ten religious women had no trust at all in organized religion and two in three LGBTQ+ women have no trust at all in organized religions.

The fact that so many Australian women are concerned about the treatment of LGBTQ+ by organized religion illustrates how far Australian cultural ethics have moved on, leaving Medieval Christian ethics struggling to keep up and faced with the familiar old dilemma of abandoning the old dogmas (and so in the eyes of purists, ceasing to be the religion they recognise) but retaining the support of the more enlightened elements in society or retaining their 'purity' and so keeping the die-hards but losing popular support in the process. Their problem is exacerbated by the fact that, as more and more moderate and progressive members leave in despair at the bigotry of the purists, so the purists become a larger proportion of the remaining members, and so the more powerful voices within the churches.

This quickly sets up the exponential declines we have seen in Europe, especially recently in Ireland and Spain where the decline in the power and influence of the Catholic Church has been in freefall since the child sexual abuse scandals broke and the Church tried to maintain its opposition to basic human rights such as same-sex marriages, family planning services and a woman's right to choose.

Incidentally, this illustrates how society doesn't get its morals from God and the church; they evolve as society evolves and the churches act as a break on progress trying to hold society back in order to retain control and its 'entitled' privileges. The Christian churches are anchored in the past and try to keep society there too. Eventually, religion is left so far behind that it becomes an irrelevance to the majority of the population. History shows this is the eventual fate of all religions and will be that of Christianity too.

This catastrophic decline in Australia, from the point of view of the churches, is illustrated in this chart which shows how net trust (i.e., the balance of those who trust the churches minus those who don't, fell from +3% in 1991 to -49% in 2018.
Gleeson, K. & Ashton, L. (2024). Trust in Religion among Women in Australia: A Quantitative Analysis. https://doi.org/10.60836/5jz3-t630
The authors of the report, Kate Gleeson, Associate Professor of Law, Macquarie University and Luke Ashton, Research Assistant, Institute for Public Policy and Governance, University of Technology Sydney have written about their findings in an open access article in The Conversation. Their article is reprinted here under a Creative Commons license, reformatted for stylistic purposes:


Crisis of faith: why Australian women have so little trust in religious institutions
Shutterstock

Kate Gleeson, Macquarie University and Luke Ashton, University of Technology Sydney

The Albanese government is weighing up the costs of delivering an election promise to protect religious people from discrimination in Commonwealth law. Such protections were relatively uncontroversial when included in state anti-discrimination laws. However, the religious discrimination debate became toxic under former prime minister Scott Morrison when it became tied to the rights of religious schools to discriminate against LGBTIQ+ staff and students.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has said the government has draft legislation ready to go. However, it won’t introduce it without bipartisan support because, “now is not the time to have a divisive debate, especially with the rise in antisemitism and Islamophobia”.

Religious discrimination might not be addressed by the Australian parliament any time soon. Albanese must first persuade Opposition Leader Peter Dutton to support legislation to protect both religious people and LGBTIQ+ staff and students at religious schools.

Second, he will need to contend with an electorate that appears, at best, ambivalent about the problem of religious discrimination, while maintaining strong concerns about discrimination against LGBTIQ+ groups.

Trust in organised religion is low

Our new research report, Trust in Religion among Women in Australia, highlights some electoral realities relevant to legislating to protect religion in Australia today. The report analyses data from the nationally representative Australian Cooperative Election Survey, taken from May 2–18 2022. We surveyed 1,044 voters, of whom 531 were women. While we analysed the data for both men and women, we found that women are significantly more likely than men to express distrust in religion, and so our report focussed on them.

Our findings present a bleak picture for religious organisations hoping to gain political traction based on trust in their ability to act ethically and responsibly.
Child abuse scandals have played a big part in eroding the trust of women in particular.
When compared internationally, Australians – particularly women – have very low trust in organised religion. This gendered outcome makes Australia an outlier in the Western world and is likely related to women’s concerns for children in the care of religious organisations. Key findings include:

  • about one-third of Australian women have no trust in organised religion and religious leaders
  • distrust is highest among younger women: almost half of all women aged 18-29 have no trust in religious leaders
  • among religious women, around 10% have no trust in organised religion and religious leaders, while around half have “not very much trust” in either
  • LGBTIQ+ women have some of the lowest levels of trust in Australia. Almost two-thirds have no trust in religious leaders
  • Women living in outer regional and remote Australia are significantly more likely to distrust religion than women living in cities and inner regional areas.

Child abuse scandals have eroded trust

Consistent with international studies, our research indicates religious child abuse scandals have greatly affected trust. Australian women are highly sceptical about the capacity of religious leaders to protect the children in their care. In fact, almost half report low, or no, trust.

They also doubt the ability of religious leaders to respond to the findings of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. Over half report low, or no, trust in this. Concern for children is highest among LGBTIQ+ women, likely reflecting concerns about discrimination against LGBTIQ+ school children, as well as child abuse.

Trust affects how women view the role of religion in the public sphere. We found that about four in five women who have no trust in religion believe religious organisations should no longer be granted tax-exempt status by the government. Around two-thirds of this group also believe the government should stop funding religious schools.

Similarly, two-thirds of women with no trust in religion think religious organisations should play a smaller role, or no role at all, in counselling in schools. Around 60% of this group also think religious organisations should play a smaller role, or no role at all, in primary and high school education.

Can trust be regained?

The report concludes that organised religion is facing a profound crisis of trust, particularly among women. Concerns for children are paramount in shaping women’s opinions about religious organisations and the services they offer. The high level of distrust among younger women suggests the crisis is generational and cannot be corrected without dedicated interventions on the part of religious organisations and governments.

If left unchecked, this crisis has the potential to undermine the social and economic fabric of Australia, given the prominence of religious organisations in the provision of education, healthcare, and social services.

Religious organisations must work to establish or regain the trust of the electorate, especially among regional and remote communities. The current national emergency of violence against women perhaps provides one opportunity for religious organisations to build this trust. This is especially so given the pivotal role they now play in the outsourced domestic violence services sector, which was once community-run.

Politically, this crisis of trust does not bode well for governments seeking support for any legislation that might appear to offer greater protections to organised religion.

In particular, any protections that are perceived to encroach on children’s rights will almost certainly be rejected by those large sections of the Australian electorate reporting low or no trust in religion. Albanese will need to get the balance right. The Conversation
Kate Gleeson, Associate Professor of Law, Macquarie University and Luke Ashton, Research Assistant, Institute for Public Policy and Governance, University of Technology Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Published by The Conversation.
Open access. (CC BY 4.0)
Although this article is about Australia and deals with the Australian legislature's difficulty in reconciling the opposing forces of social progress and Christian reactionary bigotry, it reflects the situation throughout much of the Christian world, and which will eventually be faced in the Islamic world too.

As religious superstition loses its grip on society, society will either drags it kicking and screaming into the future, or consign it to the dustbin of history along with all the other irrelevant and unwanted religions that failed to keep up, also held back, no doubt by their increasingly internally powerful but externally despised, die-hard fundamentalists and dogmatic purists.
Advertisement

Ten Reasons To Lose Faith: And Why You Are Better Off Without It

This book explains why faith is a fallacy and serves no useful purpose other than providing an excuse for pretending to know things that are unknown. It also explains how losing faith liberates former sufferers from fear, delusion and the control of others, freeing them to see the world in a different light, to recognise the injustices that religions cause and to accept people for who they are, not which group they happened to be born in. A society based on atheist, Humanist principles would be a less divided, more inclusive, more peaceful society and one more appreciative of the one opportunity that life gives us to enjoy and wonder at the world we live in.

Available in Hardcover, Paperback or ebook for Kindle


Advertisement



Thank you for sharing!







submit to reddit

Tuesday, 13 February 2024

Creationism in Crisis - Humans Were Making Beads In North America 2,900 Years Before 'Creation Week' - And The Evidence Survived The Legendary Genocidal Flood!


UW Archaeology Professor Discovers Oldest Known Bead in the Americas

The problem with having counter-factual beliefs that are only believed because you want to feel more important than you're afraid you really are, is that you need a vast array of strategies for ignoring the vast amount of evidence that your beliefs are wrong. This is especially important if you live in a technological society where there is free access to that vast amount of evidence and news such as this discovery of what could be the oldest known bead from the western hemisphere, dated to 12,940 years ago.

It was recovered from a site in Wyoming, USA at an archaeological site known as the La Prele Mammoth site:
What information do you have on the La Prele Mammoth site in Wyoming, USA?






ChatGPT4o [Response to user request]
Retrieved from https://chatgpt.com/

Information Continually updated

Tuesday, 26 December 2023

60 Years Ago Today - Remembering the Big Freeze - From My Book, 'In The Blink Of An Eye: Growing Up In Rural Oxfordshire'


The winter of 1962–63 was something else. It deserves a special mention. It came almost as a punctuation mark for me as my life was about to change when I left school and entered the working class in Oxford.

I was the village’s provider of Sunday newspapers! I felt I had an important job to do because without me, no–one would have anything to read on Sunday mornings! It was my sacred duty to get the Sunday newspapers delivered!

So, on Sunday, 30th December 1962 I got up as usual to go to Charlbury to buy my 60 newspapers for which I charged a penny each for delivery. I noticed there had been some snow and, unusually, the snow on the lower window frame on the back door seemed to be three or four inches up the glass.

The winter had actually started a few days earlier with snow on Boxing Day, the next best thing to a white Christmas, but it was nothing more than the usual few inches which everyone assumed would be gone in a few days. How wrong we were, as I was about to find out!

I opened the door to go to the outside toilet. A pile of snow fell into the kitchen. The back yard was full of snow, literally. It wasn't just piled up on the edges of the windowpanes, but against the door itself.

I went out of the front door to find the world had changed beyond recognition! The Lane was full of snow! A snowdrift came straight off our garage roof, across the front garden, over the garden wall and up to the wall of the house opposite. It was deeper by far than my, by now, 5 feet 10 inches.

And the snow was still falling thick and fast, driven by a gale-force wind! Southern England was in the grip of a major blizzard not seen since 1947 and probably much earlier. Bitterly cold Arctic winds drove the dry, powdery snow into every hollow and piled it up until the hollow was full, then moved on to fill the next, deeper hollow, until the countryside was a smooth as plastered wall.

But the newspapers had to get through!

So, donning wellies with two pairs of thick socks, jumpers, overcoat, scarves – one over my head and over my mouth, another round my neck twice – a balaclava helmet and two pairs of gloves, I slung my paper bag, made out of an old hessian corn sack, over my shoulder and set out. It was a strange landscape, but Main Road wasn’t too deeply covered. There were no car tracks!

I trudged up through the village to just beyond the Finstock turn, marveling at the deepening drifts, and even stopping to help a man trying to get his car out of his drive. He wasn't going to get very far. It was there I met our neighbour’s son-in-law walking over from Charlbury to check on her.

“You goin’ to get yer papers?” he asked incredulously.

“Well, Dad can’t drive me so I’m walkin’!” I explained.

“Well, turn round and go ‘ome” he said. “No–one’s goin’ to get their papers today!”

“Is it that bad?”

“Corse it is! Even the trains ent runnin! Nothin’s movin’ anywhere.”

So, I turned round and walked ‘ome with him, and had a cup of hot soup made out of the remains of the Christmas goose. The village was totally shut off! For the first time on my watch, the Sunday newspapers had not been delivered.

We dug out the lane down to The Green so people could get to Wally Scarrot's shop, but the shop couldn’t get supplies in and was beginning to run down as a village shop anyway, as people got cars and could shop at the new supermarkets in Witney and Chipping Norton. The bakery had ceased to operate several years earlier. It was a time for community action!

Monday, 20 November 2023

Creationism in Crisis - Bonobos Show Cooperative Behaviour - And Another 'Uniquely Human' Trait... Isn't


Bonobos offer insight into evolution of cooperation — Harvard Gazette
The researchers considered grooming behaviors of bonobos an indicator of out-group cooperation.

Photos by Martin Surbeck
One by one the human traits that creationists like to cite as evidence of our special creation, apart from the other animals, are being shown to be anything but unique, and very often it turns out that they are in fact evidence of common descent, being present in our closest relatives.

In this case, bonobos have been shown by two Harvard researchers to form relationships for mutual benefit not only with immediate kin groups but across them and even with strangers, something that was thought to be uniquely human, requiring intelligence, empathy, a sense of 'self' and an ability to predict different outcomes from different options.

This conclusion comes as a result of two years of data collection in the forests of the Democratic Republic of Congo, the only place where endangered bonobos exist in the wild in a population of about 20,000.

The findings of senior author, Assistant Professor Martin Surbeck and first author, Martin Surbeck of Harvard's Department of Human Evolutionary Biology, are published open access in Science.

The research and its significance are explained in an article in the Harvard Gazette by Anne J. Manning:

Friday, 10 November 2023

Creationism in Crisis - Head Lice Bring More Lousy News For Creationists


Head lice hitched a ride on humans to the Americas at least twice
Male human head louse, Pediculus humanus capitis
According to the creationist favourite arguments - the argument from ignorant incredulity and the false dichotomy - anything which is complex, such as cells, multicellular organisms, cultural ethics, etc., must have been intelligently designed by their particular god by magic, because that is the only answer allowed. Evolution is ruled out by dogmas, as too hard to understand, by someone too lazy to learn biology and too afraid to consider being wrong.

So, following what passes for creationist logic, creationists should believe that the species-specific, obligate parasite, the head louse, Pediculus humanus capitis, must have been intelligently designed by the creationists' god.

Which begs the questions, why would an omnibenevolent designer:
  1. design an irritating parasite?
  2. design its DNA to look like head lice had co-evolved with humans over millions of years from a common ancestor with the louse, Pediculus schaeffi, that parasitises chimpanzees?
And, as with all host-specific, obligate parasites, like pubic lice, chlamydia, and other STDs, there is the little matter of who on the Ark, was host to them and how did they acquire them?

Of the three lice that can infest humans, the head louse, Pediculus humanus capitis, the closely-related body louse, P. h. humanus and the more distantly-related pubic louse, Phthiriasis pubis, all have their counterparts in our nearest great ape relatives, in the latter case, the gorilla, and all have genomes that map closely onto the evolutionary history of different human populations.

Humans inherited the ancestor of P. humanus when we diverged from the chimpanzees and, as we lost body hair, it became isolated to our head and facial hair. Later, when we started wearing clothes, our lice diverged into two sub-species, P. h. capitis and P. h. humanus (also called P. h. corporis) respectively. How we managed to acquire the sexually-transmitted pubic or crab louse, Phthiriasis pubis, from an ancestor of gorillas about 3.3 million years ago, is a matter for speculation.
What are the three species of lice that infest humans and what can they tell us about our evolutionary history and the history of different human populations?





There are three species of lice that infest humans:
  1. Pediculus humanus capitis:This is the head louse, which infests the human scalp and hair.
  2. Pediculus humanus corporis:This is the body louse, which lives and lays its eggs on clothing and only feeds on the human body.
  3. Pthirus pubis:This is the pubic louse, which infests coarse body hair, especially in the genital area but can also be found in other coarse body hair.
These lice can provide insights into our evolutionary history and the history of different human populations through a field known as "phylogeography." Phylogeography involves studying the genetic variation within a species to understand its historical migration patterns and population dynamics. Lice are highly host-specific, meaning that they have evolved to live on and feed exclusively from humans. The divergence of head and body lice is thought to have occurred when humans began wearing clothing. The body louse adapted to live in clothing and only feeds on the human body when needed, while the head louse remained adapted to living in human hair. Research on the genetic diversity of human lice has contributed to our understanding of human evolution and migration. For example, studies have used genetic data from lice to estimate when humans started wearing clothing, which is linked to the migration out of Africa. The idea is that as humans migrated to different climates, the need for clothing increased, leading to the divergence of body lice from head lice. Additionally, the study of lice genetics has been used to investigate the timing and patterns of human migration and to trace the movement of human populations over time. This research helps scientists map out the historical interactions and separations of human populations, providing valuable information about the peopling of different regions of the world. In summary, the genetic diversity of human lice provides clues about our evolutionary history, including migration patterns, the development of cultural practices like clothing use, and the historical interactions among human populations.

ChatGPT4o [Response to user request]
Retrieved from https://chatgpt.com/

Information Continually updated
Now, a group of scientists led by Marina Ascunce, of the United States Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service (USDA-ARS), together with colleagues, have used this knowledge to show that head lice came to America twice; once with the first wave of human migration from Siberia via the land bridge, Beringia, which was located between Siberia and Alaska, what is now the Bering Strait, when sea-levels were lower, and again with European colonists. They report these findings in a new study published on November 8 in the open-access journal PLOS ONE.

The new study analysed the DNA of 274 human lice from 25 geographic sites around the world. This analysis revealed the existence of two genetically isolated clusters of lice that only rarely interbred. Cluster I had a worldwide distribution, while cluster II was found in Europe and the Americas. There is also a population found in the Americas which appears to be the result of a mixture between lice descended from populations that arrived with the First People carrying cluster I lice and those descended from European (cluster II) lice, which were brought over during the colonization of the Americas.

The researchers also identified a population of lice in Central America which shows a close genetic with lice in Asia. This is consistent with the idea that people from East Asia migrated to North America and became the first Native Americans. These people then spread south into Central America, where modern louse populations today still retain a genetic signature from their distant Asian ancestors.

Abstract The human louse, Pediculus humanus, is an obligate blood-sucking ectoparasite that has coevolved with humans for millennia. Given the intimate relationship between this parasite and the human host, the study of human lice has the potential to shed light on aspects of human evolution that are difficult to interpret using other biological evidence. In this study, we analyzed the genetic variation in 274 human lice from 25 geographic sites around the world by using nuclear microsatellite loci and female-inherited mitochondrial DNA sequences. Nuclear genetic diversity analysis revealed the presence of two distinct genetic clusters I and II, which are subdivided into subclusters: Ia-Ib and IIa-IIb, respectively. Among these samples, we observed the presence of the two most common louse mitochondrial haplogroups: A and B that were found in both nuclear Clusters I and II. Evidence of nuclear admixture was uncommon (12%) and was predominate in the New World potentially mirroring the history of colonization in the Americas. These findings were supported by novel DIYABC simulations that were built using both host and parasite data to define parameters and models suggesting that admixture between cI and cII was very recent. This pattern could also be the result of a reproductive barrier between these two nuclear genetic clusters. In addition to providing new evolutionary knowledge about this human parasite, our study could guide the development of new analyses in other host-parasite systems.
Fig 1. Humans and lice.
The map shows the geographic distribution of the modern human head lice included in this study using green dots. Archeological findings of human lice are shown with the figure of a human louse on the map with the corresponding estimated dates from: [3, 5, 6, 21, 22]. In addition, the map reflects the approximate locations of hominin fossil remains and their proposed distribution based on: [2338]. Each hominin is color coded as follows: Neanderthal (Blue), Denisovan (Black), and Anatomical Modern Humans (Orange).

The outline map was downloaded from Wikimedia: Map author: Maulucioni (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:World_map_with_the_Americas_on_the_right.png).
This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode.

Fig 5. Proposed global co-migration of human lice and humans.
Top: Map depicting the collection sites of the human lice included in this study. The color of each circle corresponds to the majority nuclear genetic cluster to which sampled individuals were assigned. Sites with admixed lice are indicated with patterned circles including colors of the two major genetic clusters at that site. The proposed migrations of anatomically modern humans out of Africa into Europe, Asia and the Americas, as well as the more recent European colonization of the New World are indicated with thick grey arrows. Hypothetical human louse co-migrations are indicated with orange and blue arrows. At the bottom, the STRUCTURE plot from Fig 3A corresponding to the assignment of 274 lice from 25 geographical sites at K = 4 (Table 1) is shown.

The outline map was downloaded from Wikimedia: Map author: Maulucioni (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:World_map_with_the_Americas_on_the_right.png).
This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode.


As the author point out, analysis of the DNA of host-specific obligate parasites such as lice can help fill in gaps in the fossil record because their evolution is closely linked to their host's evolution, patterns of migration and , in our case, to cultural changes such as wearing cloths. Again, in the case of humans, a clear pattern emerges which maps exactly onto other evidence of migration, isolation and remixing, confirming the value of DNA analysis in this respect. There is a clear line of migration out of Africa into Asia and from Asia into the Americas with the earliest human migrants. The lice Europeans inherited, had been partially isolated in the European Peninsula with their hosts, or possible had evolved with Neanderthals who then passed them on the modern humans, were the able to remix with the Asian/American variety from the 15th century onwards.

So what creationists need to explain, as well as why their putative designer went to the trouble of designing an obligate parasite to live on us, is why it then gave them DNA that looked like they had evolved over millions of years, share a ecommon ancestor with those of chimpanzees and reflected our pattern of migration out of Africa and across the world over a period of several tens of thousands of years.
Thank you for sharing!







submit to reddit




Save 80.0% on select products from furid with promo code 80BAT9CU, through 11/11 while supplies last.

Web Analytics