Saturday, January 27, 2007

`MULLER's ... theory ... and the ... nucleic acid theory, both lead to a dead-end' (Keosian)

Continued from part #1 of this series of origin of life specialist Prof. John Keosian's critique of leading naturalistic origin of life theories in a paper "The Crisis in the Problem of the Origin of Life" presented at the 1978 Second International Society for the Study of the Origin of Life (ISSOL).

[Left: "Life Did Not Appear with A Self-Replicating Molecule" Softpedia]

This part of Keosian's critique of the `naked gene' origin of life theory of Nobel prize-winning geneticist Herman J. Muller (1890-1967).

The following quote by Keosian I had already posted in part #1, critiquing the `naked enzyme' origin of life theory of biochemist Leonard T. Troland (1889-1932), because it also applied in part to Muller's `naked gene' theory, that "Both ... have the fatal fault of depending on the accidental formation of a highly complex molecule through the random collisions of atoms and inorganic molecules" which is "an event of zero probability ... and ... has not even a theoretical future" (my emphasis):

"Criticism of Molecular Theories Both the enzymic and `naked gene' theories of the origin of life have the fatal fault of depending on the accidental formation of a highly complex molecule through the random collisions of atoms and inorganic molecules. Such an event, as the basis for the origin of life, is an event of zero probability. An autocatalytic enzyme or a naked gene is alive only by the author's proclamation, and in the absence of organic compounds, has not even a theoretical future." (Keosian, J., "The Crisis in the Problem of the Origin of Life," in Noda, H., ed., "Origin of Life: Proceedings of the Second ISSOL Meeting, the Fifth ICOL Meeting," Center for Academic Publications: Japan, 1978, pp.569-574, p.569. Emphasis original).

Keosian continued, specifically criticising Muller's and "the present derivative nucleic acid theory" that "both lead to a dead-end" one reason being (and this would apply to all nucleic acid theories including Thomas R. Cech's later 1989 RNA ribozyme theory) that even if such a self-replicating molecule: 1) could even exist (and no one has ever shown that it could-as Keosian points out, "Even this limited effect is dependent on enzymes and a fairly complex apparatus which could not conceivably" i.e. fully naturalistically "have been a part of the primordial soup"); and then 2) assemble itself fully naturalistically (and no one has ever shown that it plausibly could); 3) it "would replicate at an exponential rate" such that it "would consume the requisite raw materials in a short time, perhaps in a few days" (my emphasis):

"MULLER's more recent theory (1966), and the present derivative nucleic acid theory, both lead to a dead-end. Staying within the confines of the properties of genes or self-replicating nucleic acids, the postulated primordial `living thing' would replicate at an exponential rate. It would give rise to mutants which would likewise increase in amount. Each gene and each mutant would serve as a code for its corresponding protein. In an otherwise sterile medium they would consume the requisite raw materials in a short time, perhaps in a few days, giving rise to oceansful of genes (or nucleic acids), their mutants, and the corresponding proteins. Even this limited effect is dependent on enzymes and a fairly complex apparatus which could not conceivably have been a part of the primordial soup. Genes or self-replicating nucleic acids could not have served as the original ancestors of living things. At best, had they formed, they would have been viruses in search of a host. But there were no hosts in the beginning." (Keosian, 1978, pp.569-570. Emphasis original).

Origin of life theorist Robert Shapiro also critiqued Muller's "naked gene" theory in his "Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth" (1986). But first he set the scene by noting that it is part of the "protein versus nucleic acid"-first "chicken or the egg" dilemma, which arises for scientific materialists like him who "must accept that one occurred before the other in the origin of life" if they "are to avoid invoking either a Creator or a very large improbability" (emphasis):

"Genes and enzymes are linked together in a living cell two interlocked systems, each supporting the other. It is difficult to see how either could manage alone. Yet if we are to avoid invoking either a Creator or a very large improbability, we must accept that one occurred before the other in the origin of life. But which one was it? We are left with the ancient riddle: Which came first, the chicken or the egg? In its biochemical form, protein versus nucleic acid, the question is a new one, dating back no further than Watson and Crick and our knowledge of the structure and function of the gene. In its essence, however, the question is much older, and has provoked passion and acrimony that extend beyond the boundaries of science. In an earlier, broader form, the question asked whether the gene or protoplasm had primacy, not only in the origin but also in the development of life." (Shapiro, R., "Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth," Summit Books: New York NY, 1986, p.135) .

Shapiro noted Muller's theory was adapted "from an earlier theory of L.T. Troland" (see part #1), the latter holding "that enzymes and genes were the same substance," whereas Muller "in the late 1920s," i.e. in his paper "The Gene as the Basis of Life," Proceedings of the International Congress of Plant Sciences, Vol. 1., 1929, pp.897-921, "was the foremost exponent of the primacy of the genetic material in the origin of life":

"We will enter this arena by considering an article published in 1966 by Nobel laureate H. J. Muller (1890-1967) in the American Naturalist, which summarized his views on the origin of life. Muller was an American scientist who had discovered that X rays can produce mutations. He was among the first to warn the public of the adverse health effects of radiation, and was also an advocate of human improvement through voluntary eugenics. He was one of the founders of modern genetics. Not surprisingly, Muller was the foremost exponent of the primacy of the genetic material in the origin of life. He had suggested this idea in the late 1920s, adapting it from an earlier theory of L.T. Troland. The Troland theory held that enzymes and genes were the same substance (this was long before Watson and Crick) and that this substance, catalyzing its own reproduction, was the master chemical of life. Muller recognized that the functions might be separate, and attached more importance to the gene. We will quote from his 1966 article directly: `It is the specific sequences in the DNA which determine those in the proteins and changes in the former result in corresponding changes in the latter, whereas the reverse relation does not hold, any more than, in general, other acquired characteristics are inherited. This circumstance clearly gives the gene material primacy.... The `stripped down' definition of a living thing offered here may be paraphrased: that which possesses the potentiality of evolving by natural selection.... The gene material also, of natural materials, possesses these faculties and it is therefore legitimate to call it living material, the present-day representative of the first life...Primitive conditions afforded it enough means of exercising them to allow it to evolve protoplasm that served it...Thus the gene material itself has the properties of life.' [Muller, H.J., "The Gene Material as the Initiator and the Organizing Basis of Life," American Naturalist, Vol. 100, 1966, pp.493-517]" (Shapiro, 1986, p.135. Emphasis and ellipses original).

Muller's "naked gene" was promoted and popularised by Carl Sagan (who "spent one summer in Muller's laboratory in Indiana") as "a primitive free-living naked gene situated in a dilute medium of organic matter," being "the earliest ancestor of deoxyribonucleic acid, DNA, the master molecule of life on Earth":

"Muller's views do not lack advocates today, among them the astronomer Carl Sagan. Sagan was an undergraduate at the University of Chicago in the early 1950s and spent one summer in Muller's laboratory in Indiana. Subsequently, as a graduate student, Sagan published an article expressing views similar to Muller's: `The design of the organism is merely to provide for gene multiplication and survival.... Now this picture we have been drawing of the proto-DNA molecule, associated with protein, is certainly strongly suggestive of a primitive free-living naked gene situated in a dilute medium of organic matter.... There was no protoplasm per se for the naked gene to act upon. ... In time the naked gene found it of greater adaptive value to control the environment by becoming no longer naked. [Sagan, C., "Radiation and the Origin of the Gene," Evolution, Vol. 11, 1957, pp.40-55] Sagan has continued to advocate this position during his outstanding career in astronomy and science writing. In his book and television series Cosmos, the origin of life was equated with the formation of the first self-copying molecule: `the earliest ancestor of deoxyribonucleic acid, DNA, the master molecule of life on Earth.' [Sagan, C.E., "Cosmos," [1980], Macdonald: London, Reprinted, 1981, p.31]" (Shapiro, 1986, pp.136-137. Emphasis and ellipses original).

and by Richard Dawkins in his "The Selfish Gene" (1976), as "a particularly remarkable molecule ... formed by accident" called "the Replicator" which "had the extraordinary property of being able to create copies of itself":

"In Wednesday's Tale in the Prologue, I paraphrased a modern popular account, by Robert Jastrow, of the chance creation of the replicator [Jastrow, R. "Until the Sun Dies," [1977], Fontana: London, Reprinted, 1979, pp.46-49-see `tagline' quote below]. Others have appeared recently. For example, Richard Dawkins wrote in 1976 in The Selfish Gene: `Processes analogous to these must have given rise to the `primeval soup' that biologists and chemists believe constituted the seas some three to four thousand million years ago. The organic substances became locally concentrated, perhaps in drying scum round the shores or in tiny suspended droplets. Under the further influence of energy, such as ultraviolet light from the sun, they combined into larger molecules ...in those days large organic molecules could drift unmolested through the thickening broth. At some point a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident. We will call it the Replicator. It may not necessarily have been the biggest or the most complex molecule around, but it had the extraordinary property of being able to create copies of itself.' [Dawkins R., "The Selfish Gene," (1976), Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, New Edition, 1989, pp.14-15. Emphasis original] Dawkins then continues along the lines put forward by George Wald. Such an event would be unlikely, but it only had to arise once in a billion years. `Actually a molecule which makes copies of itself is not as difficult to imagine as it seems.... The small building blocks were abundantly available in the soup surrounding the replicator.' [Ibid., p.15] We badly need the point of view of the Skeptic once again. Obviously, the chances for the spontaneous generation of a nucleic acid replicator are better than those for an entire bacterium. But the latter case was so hopeless that there is room for enormous improvement, and matters could still be hopeless." (Shapiro, 1986, pp.167).

But as Shapiro points out, "the chances of obtaining a self-replicating machine depended on the number of parts to it" and even for "a single strand of RNA of ... 20 nucleotides" (of which there is no evidence that any length of RNA alone could replicate itself, let alone one of only 20 nucleotides), such a "replicator would have about 600 atoms" and on the analogy of "Charlie the Chimp" randomly typing even a message of "18 characters" (let alone "a 600-letter message") on a "keyboard with ... 45 keys," "Charlie will still be typing away long after the stars have ceased to shine" (my emphasis):

"Now how difficult would it be to put together the replicator at random? The minimal published estimates of its size propose a single strand of RNA of perhaps 20 nucleotides. To build this structure, about 600 atoms would have to be connected in a specific way, much less than the many millions needed for a bacterium. ... But what are the odds? J.B.S. Haldane recognized that the chances of obtaining a self-replicating machine depended on the number of parts to it. If the number was small, there was no problem: `By mere shuffling you will get the letters ACEHIMN to spell 'machine' once in 5040 trials on an average.' [Haldane, J.B.S., "The Origins of Life," in Johnson, M.L., Abercrombie, M. & Fogg, G. E., eds, "The Origin of Life," New Biology, No. 16, Penguin Books: London, April 1954, p.14] If you could shuffle at the rate of once per second, it would require only 84 minutes to run that many tries. This analogy suggests that it should not be hard to put together a smallish replicator, so we must look more closely at it. We will stay with the metaphor of language, but set aside the letters on cards in favor of another much-used situation: the monkey at the typewriter. Let's call him Charlie the Chimp. Charlie is special. He never gets tired, and types out one line per second, completely at random. ... Now let us give Charlie a normal keyboard with, say, 45 keys. The odds suddenly escalate to 1 in 457, or 1 in 370 billion tries. It would take Charlie (or his descendants) 11,845 years to run that many attempts. The word `machine' does not arise as readily as Haldane's first analogy would suggest. Things get rapidly worse when we use longer messages. We will let Charlie try for a bit of Hamlet. The phrase `to be or not to be' has 18 characters, if we count the spaces as characters. The chances that our chimp will type this out are 1 in 4518, or 1 in 6 x 109. At one try per second, it will take poor Charlie more than 1022 years to do that number of tries. Should the open model for the universe be correct, Charlie will still be typing away long after the stars have ceased to shine and all the planets have been dispersed into space through stellar near-collisions. But now we have developed a real thirst for Shakespeare. We want our monkey to type out `to be or not to be: that is the question,' which has 40 characters. The chances then become 4540, or about 1066, to 1. This is a number 10 million times greater than the number of trials maximally available for the random generation of a replicator on the early earth. There we have it. If the chances of getting the replicator at random from a prebiotic soup are less than that of striking `to be or not to be: that is the question' by chance on a typewriter, we had best forget it. The replicator would have about 600 atoms. The chances of Charlie typing a 600-letter message (twice the size of this paragraph) correctly are 1 in 10992. ... There is a further irony. Even should the miracle occur and the replicator find itself awash in the seas of the prebiotic earth, its fate would be unkind. It would perish without further issue. For in this random sea, it would encounter only hosts of unrelated chemicals, and not the subunits it needs to reproduce itself. A second miracle would be needed to surround it with exactly the ingredients it needs for further progress." (Shapiro, 1986, pp.168-170) .

And note also that "Even should the miracle occur" then "the replicator ... would perish without further issue" because "in this random sea, it would" not "encounter ... the subunits it needs to reproduce itself" and so "A second miracle would be needed to surround it with exactly the ingredients it needs for further progress" (my emphasis)!

By way of confirmation, as astronomer Edward Argyle had pointed out four years before in 1982, "even one gene of average length encodes about 2400 bits" yet "It would seem impossible for the prebiotic Earth to have generated more than about 200 bits of information" (and "there is little comfort to be gained by enlarging the arena to the whole Galaxy" since "Even if there are 109 Earth-like planets in the Milky Way, the potential for random generation of information rises only to 224 bits") , therefore "it is not useful to speak of a primitive naked gene that reproduced unless it was so short that it specified a protein of no more than about 33 amino acids" which then "there is the difficulty of visualizing the way so small a molecule could have commanded the environment":

"It would seem impossible for the prebiotic Earth to have generated more than about 200 bits of information, an amount that falls short of the 6 million bits in E. coli by a factor of 30 000. A natural attempt to save the scenario is to postulate a simpler first cell. However, there is little to be gained through this proposal. An average virus codes about 2% as much information as E. coli (120 000 bits) and is not capable of reproducing in an abiotic environment. Rather it must subvert the metabolic machinery of a regular cell for materials, energy and protein synthesis. It is difficult to imagine an independently reproductive cell as simple as a virus (Watson, 1970-1), and even if one can, it helps little to bridge the enormous information gap between chemistry and life. Parenthetically, it is interesting to note that if the probability of the chance appearance of life on Earth seems remote, there is little comfort to be gained by enlarging the arena to the whole Galaxy. Even if there are 109 Earth-like planets in the Milky Way, the potential for random generation of information rises only to 224 bits - less than 0.2% of the content of the average virus. Even one gene of average length encodes about 2400 bits, so it is not useful to speak of a primitive naked gene that reproduced unless it was so short that it specified a protein of no more than about 33 amino acids. Whether one prefers to think of the first nucleic acid, the first gene, the first protein or the first enzyme as the unique structure that began life, there is the difficulty of visualizing the way so small a molecule could have commanded the environment to its selective reproduction. If life on Earth had a spontaneous origin, there must have been an intermediate mechanism that was capable of augmenting the information content of one or a few early molecules up to the million-bit level required by the first organism. ... . If the 200-bit figure is seriously in error, it is too large. If the true figure is less than half this upper limit, it will probably be necessary to discover information-generating mechanisms beyond those discussed here." (Argyle, E., "Chance and the Origin Of Life," in Zuckerman, B. & Hart, M.H., "Extraterrestrials: Where Are They?," [1982], Cambridge University Press: New York, Second Edition, 1995, pp.131, 137)

So this helps explains why Keosian had independently concluded by 1978 (i.e. before Shapiro's 1986 book and Argyle's 1982 paper above) that "MULLER's more recent theory (1966), and the present derivative nucleic acid theory, both lead to a dead-end" because it (like Troland's "naked enzyme" theory, has "the fatal fault of depending on the accidental formation of a highly complex molecule through the random collisions of atoms and inorganic molecules" which is "an event of zero probability ... and ... has not even a theoretical future" (my emphasis)!

PS: See `tagline' quote of Jastrow's account of how "a molecule is formed that has the magical ability to produce copies of itself" referred to above by Shapiro. Shapiro's comment put in the mouth of a "Guru," that "there were more dissenters now than there had been twenty years ago" because "a growing number of scientists now believed that neither the atmosphere described nor the soup had ever existed" and "Laboratory efforts had also been made to prepare the tragic molecule from a simulation of the soup, and thus far had failed" (my emphasis):

"The Guru agreed that this story had been told many times. He had taken his version from an account given by the astronomer Robert Jastrow in his book Until the Sun Dies. It was not likely, however, that the scientists who rejected this theory now would accept it in the future. In fact, there were more dissenters now than there had been twenty years ago. The Skeptic asked why this was so. He was told that a growing number of scientists now believed that neither the atmosphere described nor the soup had ever existed. Laboratory efforts had also been made to prepare the magic molecule from a simulation of the soup, and thus far had failed." (Shapiro, 1986, p.20).

And as Jastrow himself admitted (apart from calling it "The Miracle), "What concrete evidence supports that remarkable theory of the origin of life? There is none" (my emphasis)!

Continued in part #3.

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).


"The Miracle The earth is one billion years old. A chill is in the air, for the sun is a young and relatively weak star, radiating only half the heat and light that it will produce later when i man walks on the earth. The sky seems familiar; its colour is a deep blue, spotted by puffs of white cloud. But its gases are strange; in place of oxygen, the atmosphere contains pungent fumes of ammonia, the odourless menace of methane, and traces of hydrogen. A shallow sea covers the surface of the planet. Its waters are sterile; life will flourish in them later, but has not yet appeared. The continents do not yet exist; they will appear later also. In a few places, islands of black volcanic rock break the surface of the clear water. The islands are bleak and unfriendly; no touch of green relieves the eye. Gradually the interior of the earth grows hotter; its surface seethes with volcanic activity; new islands form; the observer of today, transported back to that plutonic scene, is deafened by the sudden roar of a violent outburst. The ground shakes beneath his feet. A fountain of rock and scalding water rises two thousand feet into the air above a cauldron of lava in the central crater of a nearby volcano. On the slopes of the volcano, at some distance from the crater, hot springs bubble out of the cracks in the still cooling lava; here and there, a fumerole spurts steam into the thin air, and poisonous gases enter the atmosphere. Now a thunderstorm lashes the surface of the planet. The panorama is illuminated sporadically by flashes of lightning; in each electrical discharge, the gases of the atmosphere - methane, ammonia, water, and hydrogen - fuse together to farm strange new combinations of atoms, not previously seen on the earth. Those groups of atoms are the molecules known as amino acids and nucleotides. The appearance of amino acids and nucleotides marks the first step along the path to life. These molecules are the building blocks of living matter. Later, put together in different combinations like the parts of an erector set, they will make up every variety of organism on the earth - a tree, a germ, a mouse, a man. But those forms of life are not yet present; at this point, only the building blocks are here. Gradually, the amino acids and nucleotides drain out of the atmosphere into the oceans, creating a rich soup of organic matter, like a chicken broth but more concentrated. Now and then, collisions occur between neighbouring molecules in the broth; in some collisions, two small molecules stick together to form a large one; then another small molecule collides and sticks, and still another ... In this way, during the course of a billion years, every conceivable size and shape of molecule is created by random collisions. Some molecules are in the shape of long, thin strands; others are wound up into tight clumps of matter; still others are twisted into spirals. Eventually, after countless millions of chance encounters, a molecule is formed that has the magical ability to produce copies of itself. The magic molecule consists of two long strands of nucleotides side by side. The two strands are fastened together down the middle like a zipper. The molecule unzips; each unzipped half attracts new nucleotides from the water around it and fastens them to itself; then, forces of attraction between adjoining atoms zip the pieces together. Now there are two giant zipper-like molecules, where before there was one. The molecule has reproduced itself. The original molecule was the parent; the copies are its daughters. The daughter molecules unzip, divide, and reproduce again; soon their offspring are very numerous. In a short time they dominate the population of molecules in the waters of the young earth. Today the descendant of those self-reproducing molecules is the double strand of nucleotides called DNA, which lies in the centre of every living cell. Whenever a cell divides, the DNA molecule, unzipping just like that first parent molecule, becomes two complete copies, each in the centre of its own cell. DNA is the essence of life. Without DNA or a molecule like it inside a cell, the cell could not divide; without cell division, an organism could not grow. When the first DNA-like molecule appeared in the waters of the earth, the threshold was crossed from the non-living to the living worlds. The earliest forms of life were simple, and scarcely more than the non-living molecules that preceded them. The only property they possessed that could be called life was the ability to divide and reproduce. During the billions of years that followed, these simple, self-reproducing molecules evolved into the variety of plants and animals that now populate the earth. Today the land is carpeted with many shades of green; one hundred thousand kinds of fishes swim in the seas; a carnival of animals plays across the continents. According to this story, every tree, every blade of grass, and every creature in the sea and on the land evolved out of one parent strand of molecular matter drifting lazily in a warm pool. What concrete evidence supports that remarkable theory of the origin of life? There is none." (Jastrow, R. "Until the Sun Dies," [1977], Fontana: London, Reprinted, 1979, pp.46-49. Emphasis original)

Friday, January 26, 2007

`the conversion ... of St. Paul alone .... was ... sufficient to prove Christianity to be a divine revelation' (Lyttelton)

In my debates with non-Christians,when the issue arose

[Above: "Conversion [of St. Paul] on the Way to Damascus" by Caravaggio, Mark Harden's Artchive (spot Caravaggio's error-answer below)!]

regarding the Jewish historian Josephus (37-c.100 AD)'s extrabiblical testimony to the historicity of Christianity (e.g. the Testimonium Flavianum), I would make the point that "it was not what Josephus said about Christianity that is as important ... but what Josephus didn't say ... " since "if Christianity had been historically false, then he would have been in the perfect position to blow the whistle on it, but he never did":

"Re: `none of the events written about in the New Testament have been verified by any outside sources'," Stephen E. Jones, July 7, 2005 ... The thing that AFAIK everyone misses about Josephus is that if Christianity had been historically false, then he, would have been in the perfect position to blow the whistle on it, but he never did. Josephus was born in Jerusalem, in 37 AD, i.e. 4-7 years after Jesus' death. He became a member of the Pharisees and survived the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Josephus would have experienced first-hand the growth of the early Church in Jerusalem (and later in Rome), and if anything was bogus about Christianity he could have easily said so (since Christianity then had no power to stop him or to retaliate), but he did not. Yet what he did say about Christianity (even ignoring the disputed parts of the Testimonium Flavianum) was amazingly neutral, if not supportive of Christianity (compared to what later Roman historians said). IOW, it was not what Josephus said about Christianity that is as important (which is not to say it is not important) but what Josephus didn't say of Christianity (if it was false).

But I have just realised in reading the late British Christian scholar F.F. Bruce (1910-1990)'s classic book, "The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?" (5th ed., 1990), which after I bought it I found is freely available online (even if I had known I would still have bought it anyway), that an even better witness to the historical truth of Christianity is the Apostle Paul!

In a chapter, "The Importance of Paul's Evidence," Bruce noted that "the evidence which convinced such a man" as St. Paul (formerly Saul of Tarsus) of the out-and-out wrongness of his former course, and led him so decisively to abandon previously cherished beliefs for a movement which he had so vigorously opposed, must have been of a singularly impressive quality" (my emphasis):

"It is reasonable to believe that the evidence which convinced such a man of the out-and-out wrongness of his former course, and led him so decisively to abandon previously cherished beliefs for a movement which he had so vigorously opposed, must have been of a singularly impressive quality. The conversion of Paul has for long been regarded as a weighty evidence for the truth of Christianity. Many have endorsed the conclusion of the eighteenth-century statesman George, Lord Lyttelton, that `the conversion and apostleship of St. Paul alone, duly considered, was of itself a demonstration sufficient to prove Christianity to be a divine revelation' [Lyttelton, G., "Observations on the Conversion of St. Paul," London, 1748]" (Bruce, F.F., "The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?," [1943], Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester UK, Fifth Edition, 1990, p.77).

Bruce had previously outlined Paul's background of: 1) "a Roman citizen of Jewish birth ... born somewhere about the commencement of the Christian era in the city of Tarsus in Cilicia, Asia Minor"; 2) "He received an education in Jerusalem under Gamaliel ... the greatest Rabbi of his day"; 3) Paul "attained distinction among his contemporaries by the diligence of his studies and the fervour with which he upheld the ancestral traditions of the Jewish nation"; 4) "he must have heard in the synagogue where the Cilician Jews met" the evidence for Christianity from Stephen (in fact Acts 7:1-59 gives an example), as well from the Christians he persecuted:

"THE earliest of the New Testament writings, as they have come down to us, are the letters written by the apostle Paul up to the time of his detention in Rome (c. AD 60-62). The earliest of our Gospels in its present form can certainly not, be dated earlier than AD 60, but from the hand of Paul we have ten Epistles written between 48 and 60. This man Paul was a Roman citizen of Jewish birth (his Jewish name was Saul), born somewhere about the commencement of the Christian era in the city of Tarsus in Cilicia, Asia Minor. His birthplace, `no mean city', as he said himself (Acts xxi. 39), was in those days an eminent centre of Greek culture, which did not fail to leave its mark on Paul, as may be seen in his speeches and letters. He received an education in Jerusalem under Gamaliel [Acts xxii. 3], the greatest Rabbi of his day and a leader of the party of the Pharisees. He rapidly attained distinction among his contemporaries by the diligence of his studies and the fervour with which he upheld the ancestral traditions of the Jewish nation [Gal. i. 13 f.]. He may even -though this is uncertain-have been a member of the Sanhedrin, the supreme court of the nation. This zeal for the law brought him into conflict with the early Jerusalem Christians, especially with those who belonged to the circle of Stephen, whose teaching he must have heard in the synagogue where the Cilician Jews met [Acts vi. 9] and who early realized, with exceptionally far-sighted comprehension: that the gospel cut at the roots of the traditional Jewish ceremonial law and cultus. At the stoning of Stephen, we find Paul playing a responsible part and giving his consent to his death, and thereafter proceeding to uproot the new movement which, in his eyes, stood revealed by Stephen's activity as a deadly threat to all that he counted dear in Judaism. [Acts vii. 58, viii. 1 ff., ix. 1 ff., xxii. 4, xxvi. 9 ff.; 1 Cor. xv. 9, etc] To use his own words, `Beyond all measure I persecuted the Church of God and harried it' (see Gal. i. 13)-until his encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus convinced his mind and conscience of the reality of His resurrection, and therewith of the validity of the Christians' claims, whereupon he became the chief herald of the faith of which he formerly made havoc." (Bruce, Ibid., p.76. Emphasis original).

Although Paul was converted through an appearance of the risen Christ to him on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:1-9; 22:6-11; 26:12-18), Bruce shows from Paul's writings that he had a detailed knowledge of "the facts of the life and ministry of Jesus":

"Here, however, we are chiefly concerned with the information we can derive from his Epistles. These were not written to record the facts of the life and ministry of Jesus; they were addressed to Christians, who already knew the gospel story. Yet in them we can find sufficient material to construct an outline of the early apostolic preaching about Jesus. While Paul insists on the divine pre-existence of Jesus, [Col. i. 15 ff.] yet he knows that He was none the less a real human being, [Gal. iv. 4] a descendant of Abraham [Rom. ix. 5] and David [Rom. i. 3]; who lived under the Jewish law [Gal. iv. 4]; who was betrayed, and on the night of His betrayal instituted a memorial meal of bread and wine [1 Cor. xi. 23 ff.]; who endured the Roman penalty of crucifixion, [Phil. ii. 8; 1 Cor. i. 23; Gal. iii. 13, vi. 14., etc.] although the responsibility for His death is laid at the door of the representatives of the Jewish nation [1 Thes. ii. 15]; who was buried, rose the third day, and was thereafter seen alive by many eyewitnesses on various occasions, including one occasion on which He was so seen by over five hundred at once, of wham the majority were alive nearly twenty-five years later. [1 Cor. xv. 4 ff.] In this summary of the evidence for the reality of Christ's resurrection, Paul shows a sound instinct for the necessity of marshalling personal testimony in support of what might well appear an incredible assertion." (Bruce, Ibid., pp.77-78).

That knowledge included knowing personally "the Lord's apostles ... of whom Peter and John" are specifically mentioned, as well as Jesus' brothers including James:

"Paul knows of the Lord's apostles [Gal. i. 17 ff], of whom Peter and John are mentioned by name as `pillars' of the Jerusalem community [Gal. ii. 9], and of His brothers, of whom James is similarly mentioned [Gal. i. 19, ii. 9]. He knows that the Lord's brothers and apostles, including Peter, were married [1 Cor. ix. 5] -an incidental agreement with the Gospel story of the healing of Peter's mother-in-law [Mk. i. 30]. He quotes sayings of Jesus on occasion-e.g., His teaching on marriage and divorce [1 Cor. vii. 10 f], and on the right of gospel preachers to have their material needs supplied [1 Cor. ix. 14; 1 Tim. v. 18; cf. Lk. x. 7]; and the words He used at the institution of the Lord's Supper [1 Cor. xi. 23 ff.]." (Bruce, Ibid., p.78. Last reference added by me).

Paul "shows throughout his works how well acquainted he was with" "the actual sayings of Jesus" (including some that are not in the gospels, e.g. Acts 20:35 and 1 Thess 4:15):

"Even where he does not quote the actual sayings of Jesus, he shows throughout his works how well acquainted he was with them. In particular, we ought to compare the ethical section of the Epistle to the Romans (xii. 1 to xv. 7), where Paul summarizes the practical implications of the gospel for the lives of believers, with the Sermon on the Mount, to see how thoroughly imbued the apostle was with the teaching of his Master. Besides, there and elsewhere Paul's chief argument in his ethical instruction is the example of Christ Himself. And the character of Christ as understood by Paul is in perfect agreement with His character as portrayed in the Gospels. When Paul speaks of `the meekness and gentleness of Christ' (2 Cor. x. 1), we remember our Lord's own words, `I am meek and lowly in heart' (Mt. xi. 29). The self-denying Christ of the Gospels is the one of whom Paul says, `Even Christ pleased not himself (Rom. xv. 3); and just as the Christ of the Gospels called on His followers to deny themselves (Mk. viii. 34), so the apostle insists that, after the example of Christ Himself, it is our Christian duty 'to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves' (Rom. xv. 1). He who said: `I am among you as the servant' (Lk. xxii. 27), and performed the menial task of washing His disciples' feet (Jn. xiii. 4. ff.), is He who, according to Paul, `took the form of a slave' (Phil. ii. 7). In a word, when Paul wishes to commend to his readers all those moral graces which adorn the Christ of the Gospels he does so in language like this : `Put on the Lord Jesus Christ' (Rom. xiii. 14.)." (Bruce, Ibid., pp.78-79).

The fact that "Paul was neither a companion of Christ in the days of His flesh nor of the original apostles" yet "Paul agrees with the outline which we find elsewhere in the New Testament, and in the four Gospels in particular":

"In short, the outline of the gospel story as we can trace it in the writings of Paul agrees with the outline which we find elsewhere in the New Testament, and in the four Gospels in particular. Paul himself is at pains to point out that the gospel which he preached was one and the same gospel as that preached by the other apostles [1 Cor. xv. 11] - a striking claim, considering that Paul was neither a companion of Christ in the days of His flesh nor of the original apostles, and that he vigorously asserts his complete independence of these ." (Bruce, Ibid., p.79).

means he could not be part of any claimed conspiracy among Jesus' disciples to steal His body and falsely claim that they had seen Him resurrected (which in fact was the official Jewish religious leaders' explanation Mt 28:11-15). No doubt Paul believed that explanation, until he himself had personally seen the risen Christ (1 Cor 15:3-8), whereupon he realised that the unthinkable was true: the Jewish religious establishment that he was a part of was wrong and the Christians he had been persecuting and killing were right: Jesus was the Messiah!

And attempts to explain away Paul's Damascus road experience as "epilepsy":

"We must remember too that temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) is often accompanied by hyperreligiosity, and it is likely that St. Paul - arguably the creator of Christianity - suffered from epilepsy of some kind." (Zindler, F.R., "Why Is Religiosity So Hard To Cure?," American Atheist, Summer 1999, Vol. 37 No. 3)

apart from the fact that: 1. Paul's travelling companions saw the light, heard the sound but did not understand it, and they all (not just Paul) fell to the ground (which is Caravaggio's error above) - Acts 9:7; 22:9; 26:13-14; and 2. there being no evidence that Paul suffered from epilepsy-it being another ad hoc hypothesis to save atheism from falsification, fails because of the factual evidence for the truth of Christianity that Paul was aware of, both before, and after his conversion. The latter including "the fortnight" Paul and the apostle Peter "spent together in Jerusalem about AD 35 (Gal. i. 18)" in which "we may presume they did not spend all the time talking about the weather"!:

"Though Paul had not been a follower of Jesus before the crucifixion, yet he must have made it his business after his conversion to learn as much about Him as he could ...What did Peter and Paul talk about during the fortnight they spent together in Jerusalem about AD 35 (Gal. i. 18)? As Professor Dodd puts it, `we may presume they did not spend all the time talking about the weather.' [Dodd, C.H., "The Apostolic Preaching and its Developments," Hodder & Stoughton: London, 1936, p.26] It was a golden opportunity for Paul to learn the details of the story of Jesus from one whose knowledge of that story was unsurpassed." (Bruce, Ibid., p.79)

So even if there was evidence that Paul suffered from epilepsy (and again there is no such evidence), no epileptic would "have suffered the loss of all things" (Php 3:8. KJV), as Paul "a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee" (Php 3:4-6), who under the great rabbi "Gamaliel ... was thoroughly trained in the" Jewish "law" (Acts 22:3) did, on the basis of what he thought he saw in one of his epileptic seizures. Let alone one who "possessed a first class philosophical mind," as former atheist and leading philosopher, Antony Flew acknowledged of St Paul.

Lord Lyttelton (1709-1773) started off as a sceptic, "Fully persuaded that the Bible was an imposture" and "chose the Conversion of Paul" to "expose the cheat" of it, but "the result," despite him having been "full of prejudice" against Paul's conversion being true, was that Lyttelton was "converted by [his] efforts to overthrow the truth of Christianity"! (my emphasis):

"Like so many of the literary men of his time, George Lyttelton and his friend Gilbert West were led at first to reject the Christian religion. ... Fully persuaded that the Bible was an imposture, they were determined to expose the cheat. Lord Lyttelton chose the Conversion of Paul and Mr. West the Resurrection of Christ for the subject of hostile criticism. Both sat down to their respective tasks full of prejudice: but the result of their separate attempts was, that they were both converted by their efforts to overthrow the truth of Christianity. They came together, not as they expected, to exult over an imposture exposed to ridicule, but to lament over their own folly and to felicitate each other on their joint conviction that the Bible was the word of God. Their able inquiries have furnished two of the most valuable treatises in favor of revelation, one entitled `Observations on the Conversion of St. Paul' and the other `Observations on the Resurrection of Christ."' West's book was the first published. Lyttelton's work appeared at first anonymously in 1747, when he was thirty-eight years of age. The edition which lies before me contains seventy-eight compact pages. It is addressed in the form of a letter to Gilbert West. In the opening paragraph he says, `The conversion and apostleship of St. Paul alone, duly considered, was of itself a demonstration sufficient to prove Christianity to be a divine revelation.'" (Campbell, J.L., "Observations on the Conversion and Apostleship of St. Paul by Lord Lyttelton," in Torrey, R.A., Dixon, A.C., et al., eds, "The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth,"[1917], Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Reprinted, 1996, Vol. II., p.354).

That is, Lord Lyttelton, after considering "four propositions which ... exhaust all the possibilities," concluded that, Paul was not: "1. ... an impostor who said what he knew to be false.."; nor "2. ... an enthusiast" with "an overheated imagination"; nor was Paul "3. ... deceived by the fraud of others"; and therefore; what Paul "4. ... declared to be the cause of his conversion did all really happen" and "the Christian religion is proved to be a revelation from God" (my emphasis):

"Let us now turn to an examination of the book itself. Lyttelton naturally begins by bringing before us all the facts that we have in the New Testament regarding the conversion of St. Paul; the three accounts given in the Acts; what we have in Galatians, Philippians, Timothy, Corinthians, Colossians and in other places. (Acts 9:22-26 [should be Acts 9;22;26]; Gal. 1:11-16; Phil. 3:4-8; 1 Tim. 1:12,13; 1 Cor. 15:8; 2 Cor. 1:1; Col. 1:1, etc.) Then he lays down four propositions which he considers exhaust all the possibilities in the case. 1. Either Paul was `an impostor who said what he knew to be false, with an intent to deceive;' or 2. He was an enthusiast who imposed on himself by the force of `an overheated imagination ;' or 3. He was `deceived by the fraud of others;' or, finally, 4. What he declared to be the cause of his conversion did all really happen; `and, therefore the Christian religion is a divine revelation.' ... Our author considers that he has furnished sufficient evidence to show (1) that Paul was not an impostor deliberately proclaiming what he knew to be false with intent to deceive; (2) that he was not imposed upon by an overheated imagination, and (3) that he was not deceived by the fraud of others. Unless, therefore, we are prepared to lay aside the use of our understanding and all the rules of evidence by which facts are determined, we must accept the whole story of Paul's conversion as literally and historically true. We have therefore the supernatural, and the Christian religion is proved to be a revelation from God." (Campbell, Ibid., pp.353,365)

Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology).


Exodus 3:7-15. 7The LORD said, "I have indeed seen the misery of my people in Egypt. I have heard them crying out because of their slave drivers, and I am concerned about their suffering. 8So I have come down to rescue them from the hand of the Egyptians and to bring them up out of that land into a good and spacious land, a land flowing with milk and honey-the home of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. 9And now the cry of the Israelites has reached me, and I have seen the way the Egyptians are oppressing them. 10So now, go. I am sending you to Pharaoh to bring my people the Israelites out of Egypt." 11But Moses said to God, "Who am I, that I should go to Pharaoh and bring the Israelites out of Egypt?" 12And God said, "I will be with you. And this will be the sign to you that it is I who have sent you: When you have brought the people out of Egypt, you will worship God on this mountain." 13Moses said to God, "Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, 'What is his name?' Then what shall I tell them?" 14God said to Moses, "I am who I am . This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.'" 15God also said to Moses, "Say to the Israelites, 'The LORD, the God of your fathers - the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob-has sent me to you.' This is my name forever, the name by which I am to be remembered from generation to generation.

Saturday, January 20, 2007

`Did anyone look to see who Stephen E Jones was before accepting his observations? ... we can put Mr Jones' observations in the round file'

I was Googling the other day and I found this example of the Genetic Fallacy,

[Left: Kanzi the `talking' bonobo with Sue Savage Rumbaugh, his trainer, BBC]

i.e. "a line of `reasoning' in which a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or thing itself" (The Nizkor Project).

It was in a thread "Science Hoax: Simian Sign-Language - Greatest Science Hoax Ever?" on the "James [The Amazing] Randi Educational Foundation" forum which ostensibly is "a place to discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way."

The poster is by one who calls herself skeptigirl,but it seems she is actually truebelieverinskepticsmsocalledgirl because she is, as is often (if not always) the case of those who claim to be "skeptics", not "skeptical about such doctrines of the rationalist faith as atheism, materialism, and Darwinian evolution":

"Since the publication of Darwin on Trial, I have taken to reading a newsletter called BASIS, which is published by an organization calling itself the San Francisco Bay Area Skeptics, mainly because it often has something unfavorable to say about me. As you can imagine, the Bay Area Skeptics do not encourage people to be skeptical about such doctrines of the rationalist faith as atheism, materialism, and Darwinian evolution." (Johnson, P.E., "Evolution and Theistic Naturalism," 1992 Founder's Lectures, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, February 17, 1992)

On this thread, as its name suggests, they were debating whether animals can talk. Coincidentally (since my Google search was nothing to do with my recent post about that topic), a member of that forum had posted on 30 September 2006 a link to a March 2000 post of mine in the same debate about "Parrot communication" that I mentioned the other day.

That 2000 debate had moved on to the topic of Kanzi, the claimed talking bonobo chimpanzee and I quoted anonymously a member of a private list I was then on who had actually been to the lab of Kanzi's trainer, Sue Savage Rumbaugh, and had witnessed first-hand the Clever Hans effect in action with Kanzi's sister Panbonisha [sic] pushing buttons and "the trainers ... offer[ing] extensive commentary and interpretation" with the result that "All of the alleged communication consisted of the ape pushing a button, and the trainers giving elaborate exegesis thereupon":


Language Log ... March 02, 2004 [...]

I found something on the web that's relevant to this, something that you may not have seen. It concerns an inside report about Kanzi, the allegedly language-competent bonobo.

Steve Jones, of Perth (Western Australia), posted this message in an archive of discussion about evolution on the American Scientific Affiliation, an organization devoted to "science in a Christian perspective", in which he says that a friend of his on another list (a closed list, apparently, so he felt he should not give the friend's name) had posted the following about Kanzi. Keep in mind while you read the quote below that the experiments with Kanzi are widely regarded as perhaps the most successful experiments on communication ever done with any animal.

I am amused by the Ape Story, mostly because I have met Kanzi! My Philosophy of Mind professor ... was a thorough naturalist, and thought it his responsibility to let us all know about the mental capabilities of our nearest relatives. So, we took a field trip to Rumbaugh's laboratory to see Kanzi, the famed bonobo, and his sister Panbonisha.

I was distinctly unimpressed. My class had been told about Kanzi's ability to understand complex commands, but he refused to perform or obey when we were present. The Rumbaughs had a huge electronic board with hundreds of symbols on it; whenever a symbol was pushed, the board would electronically pronounce the word associated with the symbol. This is how the bonobos are supposedly able to communicate as well as a three-year-old human. Again, Kanzi refused to push any of the symbols; his sister Panbonisha did push some of the symbols repeatedly, but it was difficult to tell if she was really communicating or just having fun making noise. For example, Panbonisha pushed a button repeatedly that said, "Chase." Of course, the trainers were happy to offer extensive commentary and interpretation: "See, she's trying to say that you [one of the humans] should chase him [another human]. She loves the game of chase." All of the alleged communication consisted of the ape pushing a button, and the trainers giving elaborate exegesis thereupon.

My personal opinion is that the Rumbaughs are possibly guilty of a little wishful thinking. And as for the assertion that Kanzi has the language abilities of a 3-year-old, I could read the newspaper at 3. Kanzi's nowhere close.

Comment from me would be almost superfluous. [...]


First, two quotes by the MIT linguist Steven Pinker, a devout Darwinist and atheist who would have no reason to debunk claims to have taught apes human language if it were true, says that their claims are "not much more scientific" than Pinker's "great-aunt Bella [who] insisted ... that her Siamese cat Rusty understood English":

"Beginning in the late 1960s, several famous projects claimed to have taught language to baby chimpanzees with the help of more user friendly media. ... Sarah learned to string magnetized plastic shapes on a board. Lana and Kanzi learned to press buttons with symbols on a large computer console or point to them on a portable tablet. Washoe and Koko (a gorilla) were said to have acquired American Sign Language. According to their trainers, these apes learned hundreds of words, strung them together in meaningful sentences, and coined new phrases, like water bird for a swan and cookie rock for a stale Danish. `Language is no longer the exclusive domain of man,' said Koko's trainer, Francine (Penny) Patterson. These claims quickly captured the public's imagination and were played up in popular science books and magazines and television programs .... Many scientists have also been captivated, seeing the projects as a healthy deflation of our species' arrogant chauvinism. I have seen popular-science columns that list the acquisition of language by chimpanzees as one of the major scientific discoveries of the century. ...People who spend a lot of time with animals are prone to developing indulgent attitudes about their powers of communication. My great-aunt Bella insisted in all sincerity that her Siamese cat Rusty understood English. Many of the claims of the ape trainers were not much more scientific. Most of the trainers were schooled in the behaviorist tradition of B.F. Skinner and are ignorant of the study of language; they latched on to the most tenuous resemblance between chimp and child and proclaimed that their abilities are fundamentally the same. The more enthusiastic trainers went over the heads of scientists and made their engaging case directly to the public on the Tonight Show ... Patterson in particular has found ways to excuse Koko's performance on the grounds that the gorilla is fond of puns, jokes, metaphors, and mischievous lies. Generally the stronger the claims about the animal's abilities, the skimpier the data made available to the scientific community for evaluation. Most of the trainers have refused all requests to share their raw data, and Washoe's trainers, Beatrice and Alan Gardner, threatened to sue another researcher because he used frames of one of their films (the only raw data available to him) in a critical scientific article. ...To begin with, the apes did not `learn American Sign Language.' This preposterous claim is based on the myth that ASL is a crude system of pantomimes and gestures rather than a full language with complex phonology, morphology, and syntax. In fact the apes had not learned any true ASL, signs. ...To arrive at their vocabulary counts in the hundreds, the investigators would also `translate' the chimps' pointing as a sign for you, their hugging as a sign for hug, their picking, tickling, and kissing as signs for pick, tickle, and kiss. Often the same movement would be credited to the chimps as different `words,' depending on what the observers thought the appropriate word would be in the context. In the experiments in which the chimps interacted with a computer console, the key that the chimp had to press to initialize the computer was translated as the word please. Petitto estimates that with more standard criteria the true vocabulary count would be closer to 25 than 125. ...The chimp's abilities at anything one would want to call grammar were next to nil. Signs were not coordinated into the well-defined motion contours of ASL and were not inflected for aspect, agreement, and so on-a striking omission, since inflection is the primary means in ASL, of conveying who did what to whom and many other kinds of information. ...Even putting aside vocabulary, phonology, morphology, and syntax, what impresses one the most about chimpanzee signing is that fundamentally, deep down, chimps just don't `get it.' They know that the trainers like them to sign and that signing often gets them what they want, but they never seem to feel in their bones what language is and how to use it. They do not take turns in conversation but instead blithely sign simultaneously with their partner, frequently off to the side or under a table rather than in the standardized signing space in front of the body. ...The chimps seldom sign spontaneously; they have to be molded, drilled, and coerced. Many of their `sentences,' especially the ones showing systematic ordering, are direct imitations of what the trainer has just signed, or minor variants of a small number of formulas that they have been trained on thousands of times. They do not even clearly get the idea that a particular sign might refer to a kind of object. ... Also, the chimps rarely make statements that comment on interesting objects or actions; virtually all their signs are demands for something they want, usually food or tickling." (Pinker, S., "The Language Instinct: The New Science of Language and Mind," [1994], Penguin: London, Reprinted, 2000 pp.367-373. Emphasis original).

On Kanzi specifically, Pinker concludes, "Kanzi's language abilities, if one is being charitable, are above those of his common cousins by a just-noticeable difference, but no more":

"Within the field of psychology, most of the ambitious claims about chimpanzee language are a thing of the past. Nim's trainer Herbert Terrace, as mentioned, turned from enthusiast to whistle-blower. David Premack, Sarah's trainer, does not claim that what she acquired is comparable to human language; he uses the symbol system as a tool to do chimpanzee cognitive psychology. The Gardners and Patterson have distanced themselves from the community of scientific discourse for over a decade. Only one team is currently making claims about language. Sue Savage-Rumbaugh and Duane Rumbaugh concede that the chimps they trained at the computer console did not learn much. But they are now claiming that a different variety of chimpanzee does much better. Chimpanzees come from some half a dozen mutually isolated `islands' of forest in the west African continent, and the groups have diverged over the past million years to the point where some of the groups are sometimes classified as belonging to different species. Most of the trained chimps were `common chimps'; Kanzi is a `pygmy chimp' or `bonobo,' and he learned to bang on visual symbols on a portable tablet. Kanzi, says Savage-Rumbaugh, does substantially better at learning symbols (and at understanding spoken language) than common chimps. Why he would be expected to do so much better than members of his sibling species is not clear; contrary to some reports in the press, pygmy chimps are no more closely related to humans than common chimps are. Kanzi is said to have learned his graphic symbols without having been laboriously trained on them-but he was at his mother's side watching while she was laboriously trained on them (unsuccessfully). He is said to use the symbols for purposes other than requesting-but at best only four percent of the time. He is said to use three-symbol `sentences'-but they are really fixed formulas with no internal structure and are not even three symbols long. The so-called sentences are all chains like the symbol for chase followed by the symbol for hide followed by a point to the person Kanzi wants to do the chasing and hiding. Kanzi's language abilities, if one is being charitable, are above those of his common cousins by a just-noticeable difference, but no more." (Pinker, Ibid, pp.373-374. Emphasis original)

Now, here is skeptigirl's (so-called) belated response of 13th January 2007:


James Randi Educational Foundation [...] Science Hoax: Simian Sign-Language - Greatest Science Hoax Ever? [...]

13th January 2007, 11:05 PM #165
skeptigirl

[...]

Here's my favorite:

Originally Posted by GreedyAlgorithm

...This comes up fairly often on the Language Log. Here's one example on animal communication: Monkeys.

Going to the link we find:

Quote:
My personal opinion is that the Rumbaughs are possibly guilty of a little wishful thinking. And as for the assertion that Kanzi has the language abilities of a 3-year-old, I could read the newspaper at 3. Kanzi's nowhere close.

I've said before and I'll say it again (what I tell you three times is true): I do not believe that there has ever been an example anywhere of a non-human expressing an opinion, or asking a question. Not ever. It would be wonderful if animals communicated propositionally -- i.e., could say things about the world, as opposed to just signalling a direct emotional state or need. But they just don't....

Sounds convincing enough. A personal experience which suggests the Kanzi claims are similar to the Koko claims.

Did anyone look to see who Stephen E Jones was before accepting his observations and conclusions? Always a good thing to do.

Stephen E. Jones' Home Page

Quote:

Welcome to my home page! My name is Stephen E. (Steve) Jones. I am in my early sixties, married with two adult children, an evangelical Christian and a member of Warwick Church of Christ (in a suburb of Perth, Western Australia).

In 2004 I completed a biology degree. For over a decade (1994-2005), I was debating creation, evolution and intelligent design on the Internet, the last four years (2001-2005) being on my now-terminated group CreationEvolutionDesign.

I am now posting to my blog CreationEvolutionDesign and am writing a book, "Problems of Evolution."

I think we can put Mr Jones' observations in the round file. [...]


So according to skeptigirl (so-called), no matter what I posted (and in this case I was in agreement with her), and that I "completed a biology degree, it counts for nothing, because I am "an evangelical Christian"! That is is sufficient `reason' for her and her fellow `skeptics' (since no member of that forum saw anything wrong in this bigotry , i.e. "A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own") to put all my "observations in the round file" (i.e. wastepaper bin)!

Well, if Christianity is true (which it is) such `skeptics' will only have themselves to blame (eternally - Mt 25:46; 2Th 1:9) for their refusal to hear the King's gracious message of reconciliation to them, through us, His ambassadors (2 Cor 5:19-21).

Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology).


Exodus 3:1-6. 1Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian, and he led the flock to the far side of the desert and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. 2There the angel of the LORD appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up. 3So Moses thought, "I will go over and see this strange sight-why the bush does not burn up." 4When the LORD saw that he had gone over to look, God called to him from within the bush, "Moses! Moses!" And Moses said, "Here I am." 5"Do not come any closer," God said. "Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground." 6Then he said, "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob." At this, Moses hid his face, because he was afraid to look at God.

Thursday, January 18, 2007

More photos of Comet McNaught-from inland Western Australia

Further to my post of my photo of Comet McNaught from a beach near Perth, Western Australia, here are three more (and much better) photos of the comet taken by an acquaintance, from the inland wheatbelt town of Dowerin, about 160 kms (100 miles) north-east of Perth, between 8:55 and 9:15pm, 17 January 2007:

Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology).


Psalm 8:1,3-4. 1O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth! You have set your glory above the heavens. ... 3When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, 4what is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him?"

Wednesday, January 17, 2007

Re: My bird ... has learned to communicate using human language

AN

As is my long-standing policy,

[Left: N'Kisi with owner-trainer, Aimée Morgana, BBC]

I am responding to your private message on an creation/evolution topic (namely whether a bird can talk in the same sense that humans do) to my blog CED, after removing your personal identifying information. Please don't interpret this as an invitation to debate-it isn't. After more than a decade (1994-2005) debating creation/evolution on the Internet, I ceased debating in order to write my blog and books.

----- Original Message -----
From: AN
To: Stephen E. Jones
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 10:23 PM
Subject: Parrot Speech

>Dear Dr. Jones,

Thanks, but I am just plain Mr. Jones, BSc. (Biology).

>I was scanning information and came upon some comments you made in response to ape communicating through human language.

Presumably you mean "Re: Apes and Language," Stephen E. Jones, 29 Jul 1999, in which I quoted from an article that questioned of apes, "... whether they're understanding what they're doing ..." and pointed out, "if you look at their production of language, you'll find it's vastly different from the manner in which ... a child uses language" such that, "Were a four-year-old child to use language in the way a chimpanzee uses it, we would consider that child disturbed" (my emphasis):

"One bonobo (pygmy chimpanzee), Kanzi, can use the system to say: `I want a cup of coffee, please'. Another, Panbanisha, is said to know around 3,000 words. ... But Dr Tom Sambrook, of the Scottish Primate Research Group, told BBC television of his doubts that the apes' achievements signified all they appeared to. `They can use language effectively to make requests', he said. `But whether they're understanding what they're doing is a much more difficult mystery to disentangle.' ... `But if you look at their production of language, you'll find it's vastly different from the manner in which, for example, a child uses language. Dr Sambrook quoted an earlier researcher's verdict: `Were a four-year-old child to use language in the way a chimpanzee uses it, we would consider that child disturbed.'" (Kirby, A., "Chimps' language skills in doubt," BBC, July 26, 1999).

and/or Re: Parrot cummunication [not my spelling], Stephen E. Jones, Mar 12 2000, in which I wrote, "My problem was the claim that animals can talk" and "A parrot might actually learn that the mimicked words `polly wants a cracker' ... in order to get food. But that does not mean that the parrot knows what the words actually mean. If it doesn't, then it is not talking as humans talk to each other" (my emphasis):

"I have no problem with `interspecies communication'. My problem was the claim that animals can talk. My cat meows for his food and I can understand what he is communicating. My wife claims he has different meows for different things, but I can't pick it. A parrot might actually learn that the mimicked words `polly wants a cracker' caused food to be offered and then says those words in order to get food. But that does not mean that the parrot knows what the words actually mean. If it doesn't, then it is not talking as humans talk to each other."

Earlier I had commented ("Re: Some Parrots Have Ability to Talk With Humans, etc," Stephen E. Jones, Mar 09 2000) on a no longer webbed article about Alex, another claimed "talking parrot," pointing out that "I saw a parrot sing `Happy Birthday' in an opera-singer voice at the Singapore bird park but I no one claimed that it knew what it was singing" (my emphasis) :

"This is a big problem for those who claim that chimps and gorillas can talk. If the claim is that chimps can really use sign language because they are closest to humans, then what is the explanation for a parrot who talk as well, if not better? I saw a parrot sing "Happy Birthday" in an opera-singer voice at the Singapore bird park but I no one claimed that it knew what it was singing. Parrots are just very clever mimics and human beings are very good at training them and reading into their pets' behaviour their own human feelings. Maybe this exposes as an anthropomorphic delusion the whole field of talking apes?"

>Are you interested in parrot communication?

Not very. As the above indicates, I am sceptical (to put it mildly) that "parrot communication" is the same thing as "talking as humans talk to each other" because the parrot does not know "what the words actually mean", as in that example of "a parrot sing `Happy Birthday' in an opera-singer voice at the Singapore bird park."

>I am an independent investigator working with a free-speaking macaw. My bird is not trained and has learned to communicate using human language (English). This experiment is unlike others because the bird communicates voluntarily.

I would say that your bird that "has learned to communicate using human language (English)"-like sounds, not "using human language" in the sense of "talking as humans talk to each other."

[Right: Blue-and-yellow Macaw (Ara ararauna), Jurong Bird Park, Singapore, Wikipedia]

That parrot at Singapore's Jurong bird park in 1996 was also a macaw (perhaps the very same one in the photo) and it had "learned to communicate using human language (English)"-like sounds in singing "Happy Birthday," was so convincing that if anyone heard it without seeing, or knowing, that it was being sung by a parrot, they would probably assume it was a human being thinkingly singing "Happy Birthday" to another human, instead of a bird unthinkingly making a learned sequence of human language-like sounds in response to its keeper's trained cues.

According to Wikipedia, macaws "are monogamous and ... In captivity unmated macaws will bond primarily with one person - their keeper" with whom "Pet macaws thrive on frequent interaction":

"Macaws ... Birds in captivity Macaws eat nuts and fruit. They also gnaw and chew on various objects. They show a large amount of intelligence in their behaviour and require constant intellectual stimulation to satisfy their innate curiosity. Bonding: Macaws have been said to live for up to 100 years; however, an average of 50 years is probably more accurate. The larger macaws may live up to 65 years. They are monogamous and mate for life. In captivity unmated macaws will bond primarily with one person ? their keeper. Pet macaws thrive on frequent interaction, and a lack of this can lead to their mental and physical suffering. Other sub-bondings also take place and most macaws that are subjected to non-aggressive behavior will trust most humans, and can be handled even by strangers if someone familiar is also alongside. Captive pet macaws sometimes display difficult behavior, the most common being biting, screaming, and feather-plucking. Feather-plucking does not normally occur in the wild, strongly suggesting that it is the result of a neurosis related to life in captivity. Most pet macaws had ancestors living in the wild just two or three generations ago, and are not truly domesticated by any reasonable definition. (This is unlike, for example, dogs; some estimates put the domestication of dogs as far back as 40,000 years ago.) All species of macaws have very powerful, large beaks and are capable of causing considerable harm to both children and adults. They tend to be extremely loud: their voices are designed to carry over long distances. This makes macaws very demanding birds to keep as a household pet. Additional complications arise from the intelligence levels of macaws and their negative responses to stimuli people generally use on domestic pets."

This, combined with "the intelligence levels of macaws" and their ability (like many, if not most parrots') to mimic sounds (including human language sounds), adequately explains why they can give a very convincing imitation of their keeper's human language.

>Unlike N'kisi, I have had no luck with mental communication, and I am extremely skeptical of psychic communicators.

Here is an article on N'Kisi's claimed "mental communication"

[Left: "African gray parrot," Wikipedia]

"N'Kisi may look like an ordinary Congo African gray parrot, but she's the subject of a series of telepathy experiments by a former Cambridge University researcher who says the results are "astounding." "The parrot seems to be able to pick up her owner's thoughts with an amazing degree of accuracy," says Rupert Sheldrake, a former Royal Society researcher at Cambridge and author of Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home and Other Unexplained Powers of Animals. N'Kisi's owner, Aimee Morgana of Manhattan, read Sheldrake's 1999 book and contacted him through his Web site (www.sheldrake.org). Morgana, 42, a production designer ... thought Sheldrake might be interested in her parrot. "I thought, 'Gee, if he thinks a dog waiting by the door is interesting, wait till he hears about this.' " She says she first noticed N'Kisi's psychic abilities when she saw an explicit picture in the Village Voice personals. "I was thinking, 'Wow, that's a pretty naturalistic work.' " Then, she says, N'Kisi spoke from the parrot's cage across the room: "Oh, look at the pretty naked body." Sheldrake was interested. He explored N'Kisi's psychic abilities using a double-blind test. He asked Morgana to look at photographs in one room while the parrot was in a cage in another. One camera videotaped Morgana looking at photographs, another camera about 55 feet away videotaped the parrot, who made comments that seemed to correspond to many of the photos Morgana was looking at. In one taped session, for example, Morgana is examining a photo of a woman embracing a man when N'Kisi, who was upstairs in her cage and could not see the photograph Morgana was holding in her hand, calls out: "Can I give you a hug?" According to Sheldrake, N'Kisi made 123 comments during the test sessions, and 32 of those were "direct hits" corresponding to the images Morgana was looking at. The chances of that occurring, Sheldrake says, are less than 1 in a billion. Telepathy is made possible, he says, by the emotional bonds between people and animals. "In the case of N'Kisi, there's a very strong connection between her and Aimee." Morgana spends roughly six hours a day teaching N'Kisi vocabulary words by using a children's touch-tone telephone and other toys, and has transcribed the parrot's vocabulary of 560 words into an electronic log. Sheldrake presented preliminary findings on N'Kisi in November at Cambridge University's Department of Clinical Veterinary Medicine. "The general reception here is he made a well-organized and sensible presentation and reported on work that looks to be competent. He seems to have done a good job," says Donald Broom, a professor of animal welfare at the university. "That's not to say everybody will be completely convinced by it. It's reasonable to be more critical when it's a more unusual result, shall we say." So it's no surprise that the N'Kisi Project, as it's known on Sheldrake's Web site, has been met with skepticism among some scientists." (McKelvey, T., " 'Psychic' parrot expected to ruffle scientific feathers, USA Today, February 12, 2001).

Yet, to me (and I am sure most outside observers) this seems to be just an extension of the same Clever Hans selection effect of humans anthropomorphically reading into animal behaviour, human thoughts and words.

Note that "N'Kisi made 123 comments during the test sessions, and" only "32 of those were `direct hits' corresponding to the images Morgana was looking at" and that with unconsciously giving it the benefit of the doubt (since Morgana and Sheldrake wanted it to be true).

Also note that "Morgana spends roughly six hours a day teaching N'Kisi vocabulary words" and yet it only has a "vocabulary of 560 words" (my emphasis). Yet according to Wikipedia, "a 5-year-old native English speaker" about the same age as N'Kisi was, "knows about 4,000 to 5,000 word families" and "would add roughly 1000 new word families every year to their vocabulary" (my emphasis):

"Vocabulary ... Jean Aitchison gives the capacity of the vocabulary of college graduates with Bachelor of Education degrees as an estimate of at least 50,000, where a word is defined as a lexeme or dictionary entry, i.e., sing, sings, sang, sung count as one entry sing ... According to Robert Waring, a 5-year-old native English speaker knows about 4,000 to 5,000 word families. They would add roughly 1000 new word families every year to their vocabulary. A university graduate will have a vocabulary of around 20,000 word families, in which tolerate, tolerance, intolerable, and toleration are considered as one word family..."

So clearly on the evidence, what these birds are doing is not the same thing as human language acquisition, therefore it is not human language they are speaking, but just imitating human sounds (as they would imitate other birds' sounds) that they have associated with their trainer's audio- visual and behavioural cues, without truly understanding what those sounds mean.

It is the same with my golden retriever dog. She `knows' words like "sit," "walk," "picnic" (for "eat your food"), "swim," etc. No doubt if I was willing to spend "six hours a day" I could teach her to bark the sounds and then I could claim she was `talking'! But I do not imagine that she understands what the words mean. To her they are just sounds that trigger an association with a stimulus.

And so I assume it is the same with your macaw and the other parrots (and apes).

>Yet, I do share a common problem with other audible communicative studies (also signs used by apes): the insensitivity and lack of receptivity of people to sounds they do not immediately understand.
>
>Please comment about the previous topics. Thank you.

See above. The bottom line is that I, like leading linguist Noam Chomsky, am "highly skeptical" of all these claims of birds (and other animals) speaking (or signing) human language, regarding them all as "merely operant conditioning":

"Alex is an African grey parrot. Since 1977 he has been the subject of a running experiment under animal psychologist Irene Pepperberg, initially at the University of Arizona and currently at Brandeis University. Alex had a vocabulary of around 100 words as of 2000, but is exceptional in that he appears to have understanding of what he says. For example, when Alex is shown an object and is asked about its shape, color, or material, he can label it correctly. If asked the difference between two objects, he will also answer that, but if there is no difference between the objects, he will say `none.' When he is tired of being tested, he will say `I'm gonna go away,' and if the researcher displays annoyance, Alex tries to defuse it with the phrase, `I'm sorry.' If he says `Wanna banana', but is offered a nut instead, he will stare in silence, ask for the banana again, or take the nut and throw it at the researcher. When asked how many objects of a particular color or a particular material are on a tray, he gives the correct answer approximately 80% of the time. ... Although Alex shows understanding of what he says, skeptics question whether he is using language. ... Parrots are highly social birds, and it seems likely that when humans are their companions, they attempt to use the communication system of those humans (language). ... Some in the scientific community, notably Noam Chomsky, are highly skeptical of Pepperberg's findings, pointing to Alex's alleged use of language as merely operant conditioning."

>Sincerely,
>
>AN
>[...]

By the way, I don't in any way mean to belittle the love you obviously have for your macaw (nor its love for you). I love my dog and my cat very much (although only the dog really reciprocates!) and when my former cat was run over by a car a few years ago and I had to tell the veterinarian to put him down to end his suffering, I was devastated and cried uncontrollably. But they don't need to be or so something that they are not (e.g. be human, or speak human language) for me to love them as they are.

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).


Genesis 50:22-26. 22Joseph stayed in Egypt, along with all his father's family. He lived a hundred and ten years 23and saw the third generation of Ephraim's children. Also the children of Makir son of Manasseh were placed at birth on Joseph's knees. 24Then Joseph said to his brothers, "I am about to die. But God will surely come to your aid and take you up out of this land to the land he promised on oath to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." 25And Joseph made the sons of Israel swear an oath and said, "God will surely come to your aid, and then you must carry my bones up from this place." 26So Joseph died at the age of a hundred and ten. And after they embalmed him, he was placed in a coffin in Egypt.